Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:DNR.

	Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread •

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, mediation, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember guidelines and policy when discussing issues. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, whose is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. The coordinator also collects monthly metrics for the noticeboard. The current co-ordinator is TransporterMan (talk · contribs · email).
Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. Refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment only on the contributions not the contributor. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. Check that a notice was delivered to each person you add to the filing. If missing, add {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page then sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before requesting help at DRN. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information) and the bot will archive it soon after.

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Talk:David L. Jones	2In Progress	Ronz (t)	11 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours	Ronz (t)	30 minutes
UFC 193	2In Progress	George Ho (t)	7 days, 4 hours	TeeVeeed (t)	2 hours	TeeVeeed (t)	2 hours
Talk:Shah Rukh_Khan#perhaps_the_world.27s_biggest_movie_star.3F	2In Progress	Bollyjeff (t)	6 days, 1 hours	Human3015 (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Human3015 (t)	1 days, 6 hours
Talk:Battle of_Karameh#Jordanian_jets	2In Progress	Makeandtoss (t)	4 days, 8 hours	UY Scuti (t)	18 hours	UY Scuti (t)	18 hours
Talk:Foundation for_Economic_Education#Hillside_doesnt_matter	8Failed	107.107.61.170 (t)	4 days, 2 hours	TransporterMan (t)	4 hours	TransporterMan (t)	4 hours
Talk:Jack Mulcahy_(actor)#.23	7Closed	Jmulcahy1 (t)	2 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 5 hours
Talk:Health care in the United States	1New	2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (t)	1 days, 5 hours	Mark Miller (t)	8 hours	Mark Miller (t)	8 hours
Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias	1New	Miesianiacal (t)	8 hours	JQTriple7 (t)	2 hours	Killuminator (t)	1 hours

Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 03:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:David L. Jones

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Ronz on 17:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:David L. Jones (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• Jeh (talk · contribs)
• ゼーロ (talk · contribs)
• Tsavage (talk · contribs)
• Staszek Lem (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There are very few available sources about Jones, and none in depth about him, though we have established notability. Of what sources we have available editors disagree on their quality and how they may be used within our policies. Editors disagree on how to apply relevant policies (especially BLP and NOT). More recently, editors are concerned that the editing environment is no longer collaborative or otherwise conducive to editing.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Suggestions for: looking at similar GA articles Talk:David_L._Jones#Searching_for_similar_GA_articles, starting a BLPN discussion (@ 17:35, 26 October 2015), starting some clear RfCs (@ 17:13, 4 November 2015), taking a break from the article (@ 23:56, 5 November 2015). I've taken a break from the article since.

How do you think we can help?

I'm hoping at this will get editors to agree to disagree, follow WP:DR, and get on track to working collaboratively.

Summary of dispute by Jeh

I agree with the broad outlines of the "dispute overview" as described above by Ronz.

And apologies to the moderator's request, but this dispute is about editor behavior. And since the opening "overview" by Ronz mentions the "editing environment" as an issue, such discussion is completely in-bounds.

The disagreements are largely over interpretation of P&G such as BLP, NPOV, UNDUE, SOAP, and PROMO. My impression is that every attempt to add referenced material to the article is met with a barrage of such acronyms, which in almost all cases are being applied far too broadly.

BLP for example is repeatedly cited to support removal of completely non-contentious material. Primary sources are simply deleted even though there is no blanket ban, not even at BLP, on their use, only requiring that they be used carefully (avoiding OR, etc.). Any mention of Jones that is not openly negative is challenged as "non-neutral", "promotional" or "soapboxing" and just about everything about him is branded as "undue".

In many cases I have quoted the relevant P&G and asked specifically how the article text violates them. I have not received satisfactory replies, only generalities.

For example, by my reading, WP:DUE is about inclusion, or not, of differing opinions about a contested point; non-mainstream views should not be given "undue" weight - I have no disagreement there. But I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of how this applies to anything added to the article, except that some seem to consider just about anything written about Jones to be "undue". Similarly, direct quotes are challenged as requiring secondary sources even though the proposed article text is not doing anything but citing what the source said. A "neutrality" tag was recently slapped on the entire article, but despite requests, it remains unclear just what points of contention exist (other than that Jones deserves an article at all), i.e. exactly what the article is accused of being non-neutral about. And no sources (or even credible but unsourced claims) have been provided for material that would argue against the article's anything the article says. ゼーロ for example once made a vague reference to "negative aspects of Jones' work" but provided no details. In my book that is nothing but rock-throwing.

It is worth noting that ゼーロ was the proposer of the second deletion attempt. Ronz is hardly a neutral party regarding this article either, having voted for the article's deletion in both deletion discussions and also arguing against several "keep" voters' points ([1], [2]). Following the first failure-to-delete Ronz took it upon himself to stub the article, removing many of the references that were cited in the deletion discussion to support the subject's notability. Again, no specific reasons, just "BLP violations" - i.e. throwing rocks with "BLP" painted on them.

Since then Ronz has generally assumed the role of article WP:OWNer and gatekeeper, responding to objections and requests for specifics with e.g. "sorry you don't like it".

Then Ronz opens a DRN case and mentions the "editing environment" as a problem! Yes, it's a problem.

Summary of dispute by ゼーロ

Note that I have some health issues so it might take me some time to complete this or respond.

The article has many, many issues. It was a reasonable stub, but Tsavage has been adding a great deal of very poor material to it. When this material is questioned he frankly seems obtuse. I can't really believe that anyone could so consistently misunderstand clearly stated points. If you read the discussion Tsavage twists and stretches the guidelines beyond reason to justify the inclusion of material that is single sourced, often from primary sources, and which is both biased and overly detailed. This person has been asked to discuss the material before adding it to the article, but they do not and revert any edits that improve or remove problematic parts. Essentially, Tsavage has made any kind of discussion or consensus impossible to reach.

Examples of specific issues include the entire Batteriser controversy section, which is a poor summary of the single source on which it is based, followed by some original research to build a case that Jones was the victim of a cyberattack. The sources are rather weak anyway - Jones' own claim, a blog post by a Dell security researcher who does not appear to have done much research, and an IBT article which doesn't actually confirm what Tsavage's text claims (it merely states that this may have happened but no-one knows, not that it did happen as the text implies). Please see the talk page for a more complete list of the problems with this and other sections.

It appears that Tsavage has drawn a conclusion from the single source, and is determined to include a paragraph that leads the reader to it. Any attempt to even fix the language used is reverted if it doesn't support this conclusion, e.g. the use of the weasel word "claimed" for statements that are not disputed. The article isn't even about Batteriser, but Tsavage seems determined to portray Jones as having "taken them down".

It's doubtful if the whole thing is even notable, and we must be aware that Jones publishes these videos for commercial gain.

The uWatch section is an example of how Tsavage is unable to distinguish puffery from useful encyclopaedic information. More over, it is typical of his attempts to show Jones' in a positive light.

The whole article needs major revisions. For example, it states that "EEVBlog was launched as a YouTube channel". That is clearly incorrect - it's a blog, it wasn't launched as there was no announcement or event at the time of the first video. It was just a hobby project, a series of occasional videos. This is followed up with some out of date and unimportant stats that only serve to talk Jones up. Attempts to improve this part have all been reverted by Tsavage.

Considering that this is a BLP article and much of the material is disputed, it is clear to me that it should be edited down considerably and new additions carefully discussed. The article has a severe lack of secondary sources which makes including material difficult.

Summary of dispute by Tsavage

I broadly agree with the "Dispute overview," with additional detail:

• My original involvement with article and subject, David L. Jones, occurred with random participation in AfD David_L._Jones_(2nd_nomination) keep, 2 October 2015. I voted "keep" and stayed to help improve it to a minimum post-stub state.

• Since the AfD, the majority of edits to add content have been challenged by Ronz or ゼーロ, usually with reference to one or more of WP:PRIMARY, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and WP:SOAP. Content is aggressively deleted, and umbrella and inline tags liberally and frequently applied.

• I have consistently disagreed with Ronz (talk · contribs)'s application of policies and guidelines, as too broadly referenced and therefore unclear (e.g. linking to WP:BLP with no further detail), or too narrowly interpreted or entirely unreasonable, and lacking in further discussion. That said, some issues we seem to have resolved (e.g. [3], [4], [5])

• I have consistently disagreed with ゼーロ (talk · contribs), who from editing activity, appears primarily committed to removing as much content as possible for whatever reason may fit, with claims including BLP violations, advertising, unsupported, and not noteworthy.

• I have had no disagreement with Jeh (talk · contribs) (and have agreed with Jeh's PAG counterarguments).

• I have attempted at length to discuss all issues on the Talk page, and have so far avoided noticeboards and RfCs, as in this particular situation, I believe they would likely squander the time of additional editors by perhaps resolving relatively minor individual issues, while not resolving the problem with the overall editing environment. All of this has been stated in Talk.

--Tsavage (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:David L. Jones discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion, most of it recent, at the article talk page. The filing party refers to starting some clear RFCs. However, it appears that the filing party merely proposed starting some clear RFCs. If there were an open RFC at the article talk page, it would preclude discussion here, but, since there isn't a current RFC, this dispute is ready for acceptance here, except that the filing party has not notified the other editors on their talk pages. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but leaving it open for the filing party to notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Other editors notified. Waiting on replies by other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

Three of the four editors have submitted statements. Since participation is voluntary, the silence of a fourth editor does not prevent three editors from engaging in moderated discussion, and the fourth editor may also join. I am opening this case for moderated discussion. I expect every editor to comment at least every 48 hours, and I will check on the discussion every 24 hours. Please be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors. (There is too much commenting on contributors above). Do not reply to the statements of other editors; that is, do not engage in threaded discussion. Address your comments to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that some editors want to insert certain material into the article that other editors consider poorly sourced or undue weight. Will each editor please state concisely (some of the above statements are not concise) what they think the issues are, without commenting on other editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

First statements by editors

A central issue is that what may be noteworthy—important, of central relevance and interest—within an article is entirely different from what may be considered to be notable or noteworthy or non-trivial elsewhere. For example, if Jones is involved in a controversy that is significant to him and his work, that should be covered in appropriate detail in the article, regardless of how high that controversy may rank in importance against all other controversies that exist.

There's been detailed discussion on the Talk page. I'm not sure of how much of that should be repeated here. --Tsavage (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The uWatch section contains a lot of puffery and the sources are of dubious quality, not appearing to be serious reviews of the work, rather little more than repeats of a press release. They don't appear to have used the watch themselves. There are many, many, many similar electronics projects on the internet and it isn't clear that this one is notable.

The Batteriser main section is not an accurate summary of the single source. A single source is not really enough to warrant inclusion anyway. The second part about the YouTube dislikes is based on blog posts that are given undue weight, and the main reason for including this material appears to be to cast Batteroo in a bad light.

Since this article is not about Batteriser, the amount of detail is unwarranted.

The EEVBlog section uses puffery ("launched") and is nothing more than trivia and already out of date statistics, and there is no value in gathering them here.

Attempts to repeatedly add a section about Jones' April fools jokes are based on single primary sources, not notable, trivia and impossible to properly verify in terms of notability or impact.

Sorry I can't be any more concise, but there are a lot of issues with this page. I've omitted some and concentrated on the worst. ゼーロ (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

One editor says that, contrary to my instructions, it is necessary to discuss editor conduct. It isn't necessary or appropriate to discuss editor conduct at this noticeboard. This noticeboard is for the discussion of content. Very often, conduct issues develop because of contention about content issues, and often resolving the content issues can make the source of the conduct issues go away. If anyone doesn't want to talk about content, they don't have to participate here, but I would urge them to participate, because resolving content issues often solves the problem. If anyone is insistent on addressing conduct issues, such as tendentious editing, disruptive editing, article ownership, or incivility, they may open a threat at WP:ANI, but then I will find it necessary to fail this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that the editors are willing to work on content, I will ask two specific questions, as well as asking the other editors whether any other questions should be asked. First, should the Batteriser controversy be mentioned, and why or why not? Second, should the uWatch be mentioned, and why or why not? Is there any other content that should be added to the article. One editor says that the article has many problems, but they don't specify how a short article can have so many problems. Are there any other specific problems with the article?

Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

In answer to your questions, I think the Batteriser section should be removed. The first paragraph is based on a single source, and not even a particularly good one as it's basically a "he said/she said" mud throwing competition between the two sides. Editors appear unable to agree on a neutral, accurate summary either. This section has more detail than the actual Batteriser article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batteriser) which is where this material should be, if anywhere. It is only included here as part of an on-going effort to make Jones look important, after the "April fools" blog nonsense was rejected.

The second paragraph is again suffering from poor sources. The main one seems to be Jones himself, and the other two blogs don't seem to have looked into the issue at all and merely pointed to his claims and his own minimal investigation as their sources. It fails to meet WP standards, and isn't even really related to Jones directly.

The uWtach should be included, but only as a single sentence as part of the main body text, rather than as a section. Most of that section is just puffery based on articles written by people who appear to have read Jones' press release and web site, but not actually used the uWatch themselves. One is based on a prototype, not even the final version, and it was only ever available in kit form. Even a single sentence is pushing it for me due to the lack of good non-primary sources, but I realize other editors feel strongly that it should be mentioned.

Other issues include the low number of good, non-primary sources and the amount of trivia/raw stats without context in the article. Is 290,000 subscribers particularly interesting for some reason? Why mention it at all? Seems like an editor decided it was impressive by YouTube vblogger standards, which goes against guidelines and border on original research. I'd also suggesting changing "EEVBlog was launched as a YouTube channel" to "The EEBlog account was created on YouTube" since there was no "launch" as such, no event surrounding the first video that was just Jones' in his garage. "Channel" is YouTube nomenclature, but seems to rather exaggerate what it was back then. Are a couple of 5 minute amateur videos filmed in a garage a "channel"? ゼーロ (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to add, the "industry reaction" section should not be restored. It's all primary sources, most of them are just press releases and commercial blog posts intended to promote the company in question. It's laughable to suggest that there even was a reaction in most cases, beyond the standard ham-fisted social media interaction regularly done by marketing departments. The only exception is Microchip, which may possibly warrant a mention but certainly not a section. Again, it's a one line thing, and totally reliant on primary/low quality sources. ゼーロ (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Tsavage:

In answer to the moderator's questions:

Why Batteriser?: The series of events that we have labeled the "Batteriser controversy" describes a media-reported extended reaction to Jones' work on EEVBlog. Jones and EEVBlog are known for in-depth, uncompromising product reviews; the Batteriser content records the significant impact of one such review, and as such, it is noteworthy for this article.

Why µWatch?: This is an electronic device (a scientific calculator watch) designed by Jones, made available as project plans and open source software, and as an assemble-it-yourself kit. It received significant coverage in electronics media. As such, it is noteworthy for this article.

What other content should be included?: On 23 October 2015, I posted to the article Talk page a list of items I believe could and should be included, given the available sources at the time:

• who Jones is - electronics engineer and problogger from Australia
• description of his vehicles, EEVBlog and Amp Hour
• stats for his products: archives, subscribers, views, etc
• general breakdown of his content, e.g. episode titles and content summaries to illustrate types of content (reviews, instructional, etc)
• description of his style (outspoken, in-depth, at-length...) and his transition to full-time blogger (we can carefully use his quotes in this, per WP:SELFPUB)
• industry reaction to his work (we have various sources, like Microchip, Tektronix, etc that could form an "Industry reaction" segment)
• a controversial situation with Batteriser (beyond being a single incident, it speaks to his overall outspoken style and willingness to critique and offer negative views, i.e. it's not padding)

Some of these are in the article now, other items are pending. An "Industry reaction" section was published and deleted for relying on primary sources, and is under discussion. Since then, based on new sources, additional items have been added to the article:

• μCurrent, an electronics testing device designed by Jones, currently available as a commercial product, and well-covered in electronics media.
• µWatch, as above.

Questions that should be asked:

• How should noteworthiness be determined for this article, what is the practical test for what merits inclusion?
• How should we determine weight within the article, what is the practical test to determine how much detail to include for each item covered?

--Tsavage (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

Two of the editors have replied, one opposing inclusion of the Batteriser and the µWatch, one in support of their inclusion. The one other section that has now been proposed for inclusion is µCurrent. Please state why it should or should not be described. Do the other two editors want to comment on the inclusion or exclusion of these three inventions? Also, I have a question for those editors who oppose the inclusion of any of the specific sections about Jones: What should be included, since it has been agreed that the article should be kept? Also, is each of the editors willing to agree to rely on Requests for Comments on the inclusion or exclusion of the questioned material? What else does any editor want to discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

Tsavage replies to moderator's latest questions:

• Include μCurrent?: μCurrent is already in the article, as a brief mention, unchallenged so far. Reason for inclusion is the same as for µWatch: a product designed by Jones, covered in reliable sources.
• Rely on RfCs for determining content inclusion?: This doesn't seem practical. It would involve multiple RfCs, uninvolved editor participation would likely be extremely low, fake editors would likely be involved (see last AfD, where several accounts were discounted), and discussion extremely drawn out and unlikely to arrive at consensus (if the Talk discussion to date is any indication). If this DR process fails, why would multiple RfCs be likely to succeed?
• Other matters to discuss?: Strictly concerning content, no (apart from the previously asked: "how should noteworthiness and weight be determined for this article, what are the practical tests?").

Point of clarification: The moderator's third statement noted in part: "The one other section that has now been proposed for inclusion is µCurrent." In fact, as listed in my second statement, there are several content items that have been put forth and are pending: Industry reaction, general description of EEVBlog content, and description of Jones' transition to full-time blogger.

In addition, for my part, my editing is not complete on Batteriser or µCurrent, where noteworthy details are still absent, so any discussion of inclusion should at the same time consider what details of each content item are acceptable, else new disputes are likely to spring up over each new detail (as has already happened in-article, and is evident in discussion here). --Tsavage (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ゼーロ replies to moderator's latest questions:

The current brief mention of the uCurrent is reasonable. Like the uWatch section, there are few good sources so it is hard to see how it could reasonably be expanded.

Given the available sources, I think that the main header section is fine, and should be expanded to include a sentence about each of the uWatch and uCurrent, and to incorporate the EEVBlog section with the stats cut down to facts about the start date and maybe the odd milestone (so they don't become out of date immediately like the current content). YouTube has the stats, a link is all that is required, no need to copy/paste them here.

The Batteriser section should stay but be heavily cut down. I propose:

Batteriser is a product designed to increase battery life. Without having the product physically on hand, Jones published a video blog discussion of Batteroo's claims, concluding that it was unlikely to meet the advertised 8x increase in most common use cases. Batteroo, the San Jose tech startup behind the Batteriser, published a series of videos refuting Jones' claims [6].

In light of jeh's comments, I have revised:

Batteriser is an as yet unreleased product designed to increase battery life. Jones published a video blog discussion of Batteroo's claims about it, concluding that it was unlikely to meet the advertised 8x increase in most common use cases. Batteroo, the San Jose tech startup behind the Batteriser, published a series of videos refuting Jones' claims [7], to which Jones responded with further videos of his own.

I was considering keeping the "down vote" bit, but Jones has since contradicted himself in a forum post where he claims that even down-votes benefit a channel as they count as "interaction". I can't find the link right now but I'll try to dig it out. In any case, it's all primary sources, he said/she said and not really fair on Batteroo who have denied involvement.

While I'd support RfCs in principal, I too am concerned that the discussion would be flooded with "fake editors", for want of a better term. The nomination for deletion was a debacle, with reasonable comments discounted and many editors prompted by discussion on the EEVBlog forum piling in to vote "keep" without having engaged in or read the discussion. Afterwards they made no attempt to improve the article or participate further. Furthermore the two other editors who have been working on this article aren't even participating here. Still, if you think it could be made to work then I'd support it.

--ゼーロ (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply by jeh to moderator's latest questions:

First, I apologize for a) my first remarks; I did not understand the process here (that we can only discuss specific items of content) and b) not participating further. I've been swamped by "real-world" work and this sort of took off without me.

ゼーロ's proposed "Batteriser section" is unacceptable on several counts. First, the device is not even an obtainable product yet; it is only promised. The phrasing gives no hint that it's not yet shipping. This in turn makes Jones look foolish for doing his analyses "without having the product physically on hand", when of course to have the product on hand would be impossible; the phrasing also completely ignores that analysis according to well-accepted theory is standard engineering practice and completely defensible. (If someone claims to have a bucket into which I can pour a liter of water, and then pour out two liters, I don't need to have the bucket in my hand to know that the claim is absurd.) The phrasing "designed to increase" also will lead the reader to assume that there's nothing wrong with the device and Jones must therefore be mistaken. Furthermore, this article is about David L. Jones and a section on something he said about Batteriser should not begin with a sentence describing the product as if it a) is shipping and b) works; the latter is yet to be demonstrated. Jones has posted at least one video refuting Batteroo's responses; the reader should not be left to assume that Batteroo refuted Jones and Jones just folded his cards and went home as a result. Mention should also be made of other sources that support Jones' analyses. A complaint will no doubt be made about "a said/b said"-style writing, but if that's what happened, what else are we supposed to write?

The plethora of "Improvement" tags: If we come to an agreement here on a "Batteriser section", a "uWatch section", and a "uCurrent" section, are we thereby agreeing that the various tags that have been added to these sections (disputed-section, advert, unreliable source, undue) will be removed and will stay removed?

What else does any editor want to discuss? I want to discuss the neutrality tag that's at the top of the article. I would like to hear exactly what claims made in the article are accused of being "non-neutral", or of failing to adequately represent any contrary point of view. Any such contrary view must, of course, be not WP:UNDUE (e.g. the opinions of one person who doesn't like Jones would be WP:UNDUE) and must have good references (because, as the article is now overall positive toward Jones, contrary claims would be negative and per WP:BLP must be exceptionally well referenced). Vague claims on the talk page were made about the article not representing ~"negative aspects of Jones' work" but no details, let alone references, were ever supplied. In the absence of any such well-referenced details and claims this tag must be removed. You shouldn't be able to slap a "non-neutral" tag on an article just because nobody can find anything bad to say about the subject or any of his works. And as far as I can see that's what it amounts to now.

Admin trivia: Shouldn't this entire section be labeled "David L. Jones" and not "talk:David L. Jones"? The dispute is about the content of the article, not its talk page. Jeh (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• At the time when it was discussed (quite a long time ago), the sourcing and encyclopedic value of mentioning uCurrent seemed very good. It still appears worth inclusion, though I think it worth building on the old discussions and looking for more sources.
• Batteriser has similar sources, though it's of less value in it being speculation based upon the product announcements and associated publicity. Still, there appears to be enough to for mention.
• The uWatch sources are far worse, but they appear to be enough to keep it from exclusion. Still, a good argument could be made that the sources don't get us past WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SOAP concerns. I don't see how the sources justify an entire section about uWatch by any means. I don't think the pre-release sources should be used at all per NOTNEWS and SOAP.
• RfCs are standard dispute resolution tools, and I cannot imagine why RfCs shouldn't be used. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator

To summarize, it appears that we have issues about certain sections, and issues about the neutrality tag. The sections that are at issue include the Batteriser, the μCurrent device, the μWatch, and the Industry Reaction section and a section on EEVBlog content. There are also issues about the neutrality tag. Some editors are willing to agree to Requests for Comments, and one is not. Speaking as moderator, I will say that all issues that any editor thinks should be resolved by RFC will be resolved by RFC. The RFC process, unlike the DRN process, is binding on the community. So please do not discount the idea of RFC. Also, I do not intend to moderate the issue of whether there should be a neutrality tag, because there should not be. We have to get the neutrality issue resolved. Who applied the tag? Please state exactly why you think that the article is non-neutral and how it should be made neutral. Please state how it is neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We will have an RFC. We will have an RFC. The question is what should be in it. We will discuss whether to include the Batteriser, the μCurrent device, the μWatch, and Industry Reception. What is the neutrality issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We need to define what the positions are on the multiple RFCs. That is, what do you want to include, or what do you want to exclude? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

State what the issues are, in detail, but be concise. (If the statements are too long, I will try to read them, but no one else will, and even I might give up. See too long, didn't read, which applies to most but not all of this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Are the parties willing to agree to any compromise on content, or do we have to use RFC? Also, what is the argument for and against the neutrality tag? The issue should not be whether to leave the tag in place, but how to remove the tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note - Please do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Please discuss proposed changes to the article here rather than on the article talk page, so that discussion can be centralized. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Fourth-round statements by editors

Statement by ゼーロ:

I'm happy to reach consensus if it is based on policy. I have already responded to comments by other editors, it's up to them to find a way forward now.

If there are to be RfCs they should cover the Batteriser, the μCurrent device, the μWatch, EEVBlog and the Industry Reaction sections. However, I am deeply concerned that fans of Jones will pile in to the RfCs (a link will be posted on his forum), like they did with the AfD discussion, and that IP addresses will be discounted. To anyone who commented from an IP address, please consider making an account NOW because if you do just for the RfC you will be accused of being a sock-puppet.

I added the neutrality tag. The main issues are the uWatch section (fan boy puffery) and the Batteriser section (which tries hard to make Jones look good, and was much worse before previously). IMHO those sections need revision before it is removed, particularly Batteriser. ゼーロ (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional: Now I'm very concerned about any kind of RfC, because of this: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/dave-needs-help-to-stay-on-wiki-a-general-call-for-help/90/

I'm not entirely sure who they are talking about, but they do mention Ronz by name. ゼーロ (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage's fourth statement:

• (External note: Reading some of the comments and the external link provided in the previous statement, I'm not sure whether this is actually a content dispute, or should be treated, at least in part, as an administrative issue regarding edit warring and generally disruptive behavior? I'm not familiar with the protocol involved in information from outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps the moderator would comment?)

• Neutrality tag suggests BLP violation: The latest and current neutrality tag was placed Nov 11. Since this article is a BLP, it would seem that non-neutrality is a BLP violation, therefore (per the moderator's last comments), the editor responsible for the tag should make the reasons clear, and this should be resolved as a priority.

• Regarding multiple RfCs as the best way forward: My previous comment about RfCs indicated that I couldn't imagine, given the discussion already, how a half-dozen or so RfCs, one for each disputed content item, seems like a solid course of action. There's already 30,000+ words of discussion around these same items, and disputes over individual details within the items. Is the idea to put up entire paragraphs and sections for approval, to lock in the wording? Are we to create an RfC for every content disagreement? That said, I am up for discussing whatever is put on the table.

• What exactly is the policy basis for much of the exclusion challenges?: As I understand Wikipedia policy, once notability is established and an article created, the standard for inclusion - noteworthiness - is reliable sourcing and relevance to the article topic, with relative weight of items in-article determined by WP:DUE, when there are competing viewpoints, otherwise, by giving emphasis to the most important items (e.g "Career" over "Early life"). In a BLP, just about anything to do with the subject is relevant provided it is reliably sourced. For example, in the Jones article, common sense and sources tell us he has designed a watch and electronic testing gear, so what is the policy basis for excluding that? And once that is included, what is the policy basis for limiting reasonable detail about those items, such as review excerpts and product descriptions? Is "I don't like that" adequate sole basis for an RfC?

• My issues with Jones' article content: I don't have content issues, only issues with editor challenges to inclusion. I'm here to discuss. I have already made my position clear. To summarize: I believe all of the content under dispute is noteworthy, neutral and reliably sourced, and from challenging editors, I have asked for specific reasons why the situation is otherwise, and not received clear and actionable replies (as documented on the article's Talk page).

• Regarding "Batteriser controversy" clarification: Please note that the Batteriser controversy in the article refers to the extended public exchange between Jones and Batteriser, and not to any of the various other coverage of Batteriser. What makes this a controversial interaction between the two parties is the series of events specifically involving Jones and Batteriser: Jones' original critical EEVBlog Batteriser debunk episode; Batteriser's responses that mention Jones; Jones second episode critiquing Batteriser's demo video; the various other media that cited Jones' work in their own coverage (e.g. Gizmodo, EDN Network, Hackaday); and the Sydney Morning Herald investigative article summarizing the controversy, which states, "...electrical experts have slammed the company's claims of longer-lasting power as misleading. It all started with popular Australian YouTube channel Electronics Engineering Video Blog (EEVblog)." and covers Jones original episode, gets direct response from Jones and Batteriser, and interviews several independent experts. _{added --Tsavage (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)}

--Tsavage (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Staszek Lem regarding Batteriser

In the talk page it is written: "This may be a minor story in the whole wide world, but in a David L. Jones article it appears to me to be a substantial event, and a fully defined controversy".

All sources which discuss the event are discussing Batteriser. This discussion involves many other things: Battreiser's promoter, a new trick to troll youtube, boost converters, batteries, and whats not. But clearly the central subject is one: Batteriser. Therefore in fullest detail the topic must go into its article. Batteriser was criticized before and after Jones. In Jones article it must be a brief description how it was related to Jones not the whole WP:COATRACK of events. Of note is ridiculous insisting that controversy was started from Jones, just because some newspaper said so. This statement is provably false and to cite it because some "WP:RS" published it is inept wiklawyering: for starters, if the source publishes verifiably false information, it is no longer reliable. My brief version of events was reverted by Tsavage. While complaining that Ronz exercised WP:OWNership of the page, Tsavage appears to do exactly the same: revert warring (he reverted to his "better" version at least twice). In talk page he did not prove that my version was wrong as claimed in edit summary. Instead, he presented a great plan to make this section even more grandiose. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• As for tagging, given this is a BLP, the material should be removed until consensus is reached for it's inclusion. I'd hope that we could simply focus resolving the content dispute rather than wasting time discusing tags that will be removed once the problems are resolved, which in the meantime notify readers and editors of the dispute. I do think the tags are justified given the use of poor sources, poorly sourced information, and non-encyclopedic information. As we've been unable to come to agreement on what are and are not "high-quality sources" as required of BLP, I think we're at an impasse without others' involvement. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional from ゼーロ:

Forum users have started harassing me again with a bit of doxing: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/dave-needs-help-to-stay-on-wiki-a-general-call-for-help/120/

I don't know what the procedure is in cases like this. ゼーロ (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Doxing" refers to revealing "personally identifiable information". I see nothing like that there. Do you? Did I miss it? Jeh (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed my account name to avoid being harassed, and they are trying to link it back up to the old one in order to continue harassing me. I don't really want to discuss it here though, as every public mention just encourages more abuse on other platforms. ゼーロ (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator

I have prepared an incomplete draft of the RFC at User:Robert McClenon/Draft Jones RFC. I have prepared the draft in user space rather than here because the levels of the headings will break the formatting here. Anyone who has a proposed wording for any of the five proposed sections may insert it into the draft in the proper place. If there are two different wordings, and editors cannot agree, then the question in the RFC will have to be changed to whether to include either of the draft sections or none, and similarly if there are more than two proposed wordings. Please have at it at the user page. I would like to get the RFC published within two or three days and this case put to bed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As to the neutrality tag, unless anyone can say precisely what the neutrality issue is and why it cannot be answered with the RFC, I will just be pulling the tag. The purpose of tags is to improve articles, not to tag articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fifth-round statements by editors

"As to the neutrality tag, unless anyone can say precisely what the neutrality issue is and why it cannot be answered with the RFC, I will just be pulling the tag. The purpose of tags is to improve articles, not to tag articles. " Fine if all contentious material is removed per BLP, disruptive otherwise. Do clarify your intentions. --Ronz (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

UFC 193

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by George Ho on 23:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• UFC 193 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• George Ho (talk · contribs)
• Muboshgu (talk · contribs)
• Udar55 (talk · contribs)
• Hahnchen (talk · contribs)
• Ppt1973 (talk · contribs)
• Gsfelipe94 (talk · contribs)
• Andise1 (talk · contribs)
• Athomeinkobe (talk · contribs)
• Imhungry4444 (talk · contribs)
• Lukejordan02 (talk · contribs)
• Hasteur (talk · contribs)
• InedibleHulk (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This article is nominated to be In the News. Somehow, users who frequently specialized on UFC pages keep removing content to be consistent with other articles about UFC events, like UFC 155 and UFC 175. I invited those who constantly removed content for talk. Somehow, only one did not respond but instead started another thread of same issue. I want this article to be featured in the Main Page, but only several of us added descriptions of events.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I made replies in user pages and invited users for talk. This has been discussed in the article talk page also. Also, I requested full protection at WP:RPP. I haven't reported a violation of 3RR because no one has yet violated the rule. I discussed a minor issue—bolding awards—at Project talk page, but no one responded there, so I moved it to article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I want a lot of volunteers, novice and experienced alike. Also, I don't want anyone blocked for this matter. Also, people should be encouraged to discuss anything they want. Also, people should learn to accept and appreciate good (if not best) quality.

Summary of dispute by Muboshgu

Guess I should have watchlisted this article. It was posted at WP:ITN but pulled erroneously, IMO. These MMA editors keeping valid material off the page isn't helping get it reposted. Keeping it off because it's not uniform with the past UFC event pages is not acceptable. If anything, it suggests the first 192 pages are incomplete and should be expanded. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Udar55

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Hahnchen

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Ppt1973

I don't have much of an opinion either way on the expansion of the article. As InedibleHulk has stated, there just needs to be consistency. Some of the content that has been added seems to be relevant, while other not so much. Several users have contributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts, which can always be improved. Ppt1973 (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gsfelipe94

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Andise1

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I'm not going to make this a most asking for pity or anything like that. However, I spent quite a bit of time adding information on the actual fights to the article, making the wording better, adding a reaction section (per suggestion at ITN/C), yet other editors who are not involved at ITN want to revert this beneficial, sourced information. I knew this was going to have a tough time getting posted. That's why I spent quite a bit of time updating the article to the best I could get it to. I wouldn't have spent time adding this information had I known these UFC editors would revert everything I added. One of the editors (who was against the sections I added) said the article was about the event, not the fights. Well, without the fights there would be no event. How can an article about an event exist without any information about what went on in the event? It truly disappoints me that editors would revert sourced information that I (and others) spent time adding. These UFC editors seem to think they own the UFC articles, which is obviously not true. Such a shame, this had/has a chance at being on the main page. Andise1 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Athomeinkobe

I was the editor who requested pending changes protection of the article last week because IPs kept changing the date (it was held on the 15th in Australia, which was the night of the 14th in the US). I have also done some tweaking of other wording throughout the article, but have not significantly contributed to the text. To that extent, I do not consider myself "invovled" in this dispute, but I will give my thoughts on the issue.
It has caught my attention that at least one editor does not want this article to stray from the format which is used in other UFC articles. Looking at the articles for UFC 192, 191, etc., it is clear that the pattern is to describe in great detail the "background" of who was meant to be fighting and why they didn't, but then a simple table of the results with no further mention of what actually happened on the night. Compare that to the recap section of the article about the recent Mayweather vs. Pacquiao boxing match. That article was approved for the In The News section of the main page back in May. The analysis of the actual event is the clear difference between the two.
It goes without saying that for this or any sports article to be of real benefit to a reader weeks or years after the event, then it needs to have a description of the action. The fans of UFC who spend a lot of time cultivating the Background section of the article are surely the most knowledgable about the sport, so they would be in a great position to help write a good decription (with reference to reliable sources of course). In this instance, it would have the extra benefit of perhaps seeing the article appear on the main page of Wikipedia, giving greater exposure to their favourite sport. The alternative is that it remains a bare list that fans will only ever spend 5 seconds looking at before moving on. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Imhungry4444

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Lukejordan02

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Hasteur

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

While I have not participated in this specific article I would note that the format of MMA event articles has come about through several rounds of negotiation and consensus building and strongly suggest that the current format remains. I would also suggest that this be sent back to the Article's talk page as the filer of this DRN post has yet to make a post challanging the removal of content. Furthermore it seems like there is already a reasoned consensus (as represented in Marc Kupper's 20:41, 16 November 2015 post). I recuse myself from acting in any DRN Volunteer role with respect to this as I have a well appreciated COI with respect to MMA articles. Hasteur (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by InedibleHulk

I don't really have an opinion on whether we should detail the main and co-main fights. On one hand, it's far more informative. On the other, it's far more work. As long as there's consistency, and we're not just doing it to pander.

Regardless of whether ITN ever considers a major sporting event with massive coverage like this more signfificant than MotoGP races, rowing and the like, I think we should consistently use lowercase for common nouns (i.e., weight classes). It's just proper English, even if non-fans aren't looking. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, November 17, 2015 (UTC)

UFC 193 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

•  Volunteer note:  Verified There has been significant prior discussion on the article talk page. JQTriple7 (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note:  Verified All parties have been notified. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: DRN volunteer observation. The list of participants is incomplete and does not include the DRN volunteer, User:Hasteur. If Hasteur has not participated in the dispute, should their observation be changed to a DRN volunteer note? Perhaps this still works if the editor is recusing for COI and involvement in the general area. Please see this as a simple note and technical question and does not involve the dispute.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps discuss on talkpage for the time and post consensus if reached in timely manner then Mark Miller? For now, I have added them to the list since they have recused their rights as a volunteer to participate in discussion as an editor, but happy to be reverted on the listing aspect of this edit if inappropriate (just don't catch my comment in the revert if anyone does so). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's an open ended question. We really don't have any guideline for when a volunteer adds themselves to a discussion in this manner and then recuses themselves, so this isn't about anything more than whether that should have been added as a volunteer note and not about adding them to the DRN that they have admitted to not being involved in. That can be reverted. Sorry for the distraction but the way that looked I thought the volunteer was involved in the DRN. This is not the case and is only that the volunteer is involved in the general subject and is recusing themselves as a volunteer for this reason. The editor in question is highly experienced and this is unique only in that a volunteer has made a note in a manner that made it look as if they were a participant and it seems that in some ways they are. I see this as nothing more than taking note of the editor's involvement in both DRN and the general subject but accept their recusal and contribution as noted. It may be that I am being too technical for newcomers here. Sorry if this was a disruption. Carry on and happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mark. Volunteers here always have the choice of either participating here as a volunteer or joining the dispute as a participant (even if they have not done so before the filing here). If they join as a participant they are, of course, conflicted out of participating here as a volunteer, but there's no reason they cannot participate as a party to the dispute. The only problem that causes is that there may not be another volunteer who can satisfy our rule (at the top of this page) that, "Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute." But that can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 06:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Eh, no worries for me, I think I am getting your "too technical" point now Mark Miller, as I must have missed it by a few ballparks. You're saying that Hasteur should have possibly used a {{V note}} to let others know that Hasteur was not involved as a "Volunteer" but as a "Typical Editor" instead of adding the note in their 'Summary of dispute'? I suppose it is merely a technical question, but probably important to mention somewhere for future cases to avoid confusion. Anyway, I've hatted the conversation to reduce "distraction". Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Do not hat or collapse a volunteer's note to the DRN. My contribution related only to the manner in which a volunteer of this board added comment and recusal and was technical but relevant and has precendent.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Self-trout. Sorry Mark, the collapse was only meant to reduce distraction to the UFC case discussion, not to imply it wasn't relevant or anything. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Before you go off running and screaming abuse, you might want to consider my statement itself I recuse myself from acting in any DRN Volunteer role with respect to this as I have a well appreciated COI with respect to MMA articles. I would also note that just before I posted my statement, I removed myself from the list of DRN volunteers that the bot checks for updating the DRN case template. I was previously heavily involved in the MMA space in upholding the policies for standards and therefore can't claim that I'm impartial with respect to this content space. Per my own declaration of COI on my use page from the previous involvement (see the MMA wars of 2012/2013 up to WP:GS/MMA) I am self restricted from participating as a DR volunteer, however this sub-local consensus form on one page is not appropriate. If you can't secure consensus (and as I indicated above from the article talk page) at the article talk page, you appeal to the governing wikiproject, if you can't secure the consensus there, you bring it for RFC to secure consensus. Not having this in ITN is not going to be the downfall of the wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Hasteur. This wasn't about abuse. Just noting that you were a volunteer. The list I checked still showed your bio. As I said, you are an experienced editor and volunteer and I was sure there was a reason, but as a long term volunteer here myself I was not aware you removed yourself from the list for this DRN. As I understand it then, you are still a volunteer here, but since you are self restricted from participation as a "DRN Volunteer", you have temporarily removed yourself from the bot recognition list to add comment. I understand. Feel free to add comment when you feel inclined as a participant of the DRN. Thanks for explaining.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

volunteer hereTeeVeeed (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC) give me some time to catch-up with the problem please. How are these cases usually handled if that has not already been addressed? I guess what I am thinking is why not just go ahead and submit the article in the state that you like, and then just keep doing what you have been doing? Surely articles submitted and even accepted articles change all the time? With that being said, I understand that there are contentions here, so let me get up to speed.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by volunteer moderatorTeeVeeed Well, we should let this simmer a bit, and I have not looked-at and considered everything here yet, but here are my opinions (which could change)--and first impressions; A-it is too late now for this article to be In The News , right? So that is moot at this point. On the problem of "consistency", we only need to be consistent with Wikipedia policy and MOS. This sounds like a discussion or debate about whether or not to maintain articles in "stubby"-condition, just because a group of editors have decided that they want it that way? Why do we not want it both ways here? Have your templeted info, follow the MOS, and edit which versions how you want. As far as sanctioning anyone, as was pointed-out, there are no actual problems yet.
BUT. Asking that an article be locked-down to prevent other editors from making valid edits does not apply here for a good reason either. My current recommendation is to continue using the talk page, and carry-on editing as usual. Maybe even work it out between yourselves to let one version prevail at certain times? There is no "final" version due to the nature of this encyclopedia. If there are developing problems or behavior complaints, take this problem there but this just appears to be a difference in opinion of styles, which can be changed often.
TeeVeeed (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

3rd Statement by volunteer moderatorTeeVeeed I have added a banner notice to the top of the article talk page. In my opinion, there is even still more room for content about the main event, and as was noted on the talk page discussion, further details about worldwide reaction to the main event. With that being said, as also was suggested already, it would be appropriate to create a new article on the Rousey vs. Holm fight, with the standard format of putting in italics IE--(I know it is not a UFC example!) the Larry Holmes article where in the section, Larry Holmes#Holmes vs. Cooney there is an italics beneath the section header which links to the other article

Main article: Larry Holmes vs. Gerry Cooney

. So under the current UFC 193 article section UFC 193#Rousey vs. Holm fight an italics would appear

Main article: Rousey vs. Holm fight

As far as the rest of the dispute, about conforming all UFC articles to a certain format. My current thinking is that there are many instances where Wikipedia would guide us to say that article expansion is the way to go, and nothing that I can think of, aside from using template and infobox for uniformity in certain topics, BUT----if anyone has any specific Wikipedia policy guidance that would allow for those type of article sanctions, post them here please.
With that being said I do think that we must serve our readers, and a tradition of certain formatting in UFC articles is probably expected by some of them. So what do you guys think about taking the UFC 193#Rousey vs. Holm fight to another article? ,
Personally, I did a little WP:OR on the topic, and the most interesting thing that I learned was about how the outcome of the main event affected betting payouts, and how pre-fight, bettors had to put up $2000 to win a hundred on the favorite Rousey, and some other interesting stuff there from sports handicapping and gaming POV, so there is room for content/facts/references.....especially again worldwide reaction
TeeVeeed (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I posit that really this DRN thread should have not ever been accepted and instead should have been sent back to the article talk page or to the governing project's talk page for further discussion and or consensus building. Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. From the filing editor's own words to his expectations here: "I want a lot of volunteers, novice and experienced alike." This sounds more like the dispute needs further discussion and is not stuck as much as, perhaps, some may be unhappy of the direction the article has taken since it became FA. My opinion is, that this should be kicked back to the article talk page and a recommendation for a formal RFC.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

4th Statement by volunteer moderatorTeeVeeed As long as there are no good reasons posted here shortly, I agree and will close this DRN with the recommendation that this discussion go to governing project's talk page, as suggested by Hasteur , with the further suggestion that starting a new article on the

Main article: Rousey vs. Holm fight

, is also a valid option.TeeVeeed (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shah Rukh_Khan#perhaps_the_world.27s_biggest_movie_star.3F

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Bollyjeff on 02:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Shah Rukh Khan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bollyjeff (talk · contribs)
• Semitransgenic (talk · contribs)
• Fideliosr (talk · contribs)
• Human3015 (talk · contribs)
• Vensatry (talk · contribs)
• Kailash29792 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article Shah Rukh Khan passed FA and TFA recently with a certain sourced statement in the lead and blurb. A couple days after it was TFA, someone thought that this statement should be removed. Since that time several other editors have chimed in on the discussion page, some agreeing with this, some wanting to keep it as it was, and some wanting to go even further in the direction that it was. DRN was suggested a couple times so I thought of giving this a try. I am the editor who took this article to GA, FA, and TFA, and I think that something along these lines needs to be in the lead for our readers.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Many more sources were brought to light upon request supporting the statement, and alternative statements were proposed, edited in, and rejected. The current form is different than the TFA version.

How do you think we can help?

Maybe we need some un-involved parties to help resolve the conflict now. There may be some involved who have some sort of agenda (this has also been suggested on the talk page).

Summary of dispute by Semitransgenic

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Fideliosr

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Here's a brief summary of my concerns:

• There's no universal consensus that he is the "biggest" movie star in the world. The mention looks quite fanboyish.
• Mere and inconsistent opinion of a bunch of journalists. Not that noteworthy stuff.
• Tom Cruise vs. SRK debate, in my opinion, is irrelevant here.

Fideliosr (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Human3015

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Read this FA version (first para of lead), which says "Described by the Los Angeles Times as perhaps "the world's biggest movie star"". Some editors had concern that it is view of that journalist and not of LA Times, and it is "paid news". Some users said that chief executive editor or owner of that news agency should say that he is "biggest star" then only we can attribute to News agency. There are several other sources who call him "biggest star" as seen in this version. Most of sources called him biggest star in terms of number of people know him. Around 3.5 billion people around the world knows him. [8], [9], [10], [11] all these news sources saying that SRK has around 3.5 billion audience but as per other parties these are "paid news". I think we can simply write that "Shah Rukh Khan is known as biggest film star in the world in terms of number of people know him, it is estimated that around 3.5 billion people around the world know him". --Human3015^TALK  12:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Vensatry

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Kailash29792

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I have just tried supporting the article being how it was during its FAC pass, and TFA appearance. I supported the LA Times quote about the actor being in the lead because, even though it praises him, we are maintaining neutrality by quoting someone else rather than praise him through our own words. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Shah Rukh_Khan#perhaps_the_world.27s_biggest_movie_star.3F discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion at the article talk page. However, the filing party has not notified the other editors. Another editor may provide a procedural close if the filing editor does not first notify the other editors. The filing editor can notify all of the other editors. I am not opening or closing this case, but it may be closed if the filing editor does not notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

They have now been notified. BollyJeff | talk 04:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note:  Verified All involved parties have been notified on their talk pages. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Note to participants: Can parties please refer to diffs when discussing prior versions of the article in question. It helps to save DRN Volunteers' time when looking through your statements, instead of edit-history trawling. You can also use the {{diff}} template to create "in wiki" links (without the 'external' link icon in the corner). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Not particularly about the dispute but reading the disputed sentence I think it worth noting that Described by the Los Angeles Times has a different meaning from described in the Los Angeles Times. The first refers to an editorial statement while the second merely states that the description has appeared in the newspaper. From all appearances, the second statement - described in the Los Angeles Times - is the more accurate one here. --regentspark (comment) 02:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Note to participants: Please keep discussion to a minimum before the case is opened by a volunteer, which will happen as soon as all parties respond, or in a few days if they don't. Thank you for your understanding. JQTriple7 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by volunteer moderator Winkelvi: Since it has been a few days since everyone involved has been notified of this DRN, I will go ahead and take a stab at this. From a first look at the article, it does not seem to me that the content should be in the lede to begin with, rather, it should be in the body of the article. It's an opinion by a newspaper journalist in one article, not an honor or title given to the article subject in the mode of "Sexiest Man Alive" ala People Magazine. Frankly, I am amazed that the inclusion of the statement in the lede made it past those reviewing the article for GA, FA, and TFA. The wording as well as the statement itself ("...biggest film star in the world in terms of number of people know him, it is estimated that around 3.5 billion people around the world know him") seems very fan-site-ish and very un-encyclopedic to me. Regardless, if it stays in the article (and I personally don't think it should as it is), it's not suited for the lede per this: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"XYZ editor is a fan of this actor or that actor" such accusations are already made by each party on each other on talk page of the article, thats why we have came here to have discussion without any accusations. 2nd thing is that all claims are supported by the sources. You can read this and this which are reliable sources stating SRK is more popular than Tom Cruise on the basis of a popularity survey. Also this abc news is giving reference of Business Week and stating that his estimated audience is 3.5 billion (there are several other sources to back it). These are not opinions of journalist. These things needs mention in lead somehow. --Human3015^TALK  23:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015 - This is rather getting odd because you haven't been listening to anybody's opinion and presenting your own thoughts based on that, but only repeating the same 3.5 billion thing over and over again. @Winkelvi - I totally agree with your suggestions. Fideliosr (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you are repeating your statements and ignoring sources. What I have provided is not journalist opinions. Above ABC news attributing to "Business Week" and not to any "journalist" while stating about 3.5 billion audience, and other sources are attributing to "popularity survey" when comparing SRK with Tom Cruise. --Human3015^TALK  21:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: The statement that you made above is not the original, or current version. It is "Described by the Los Angeles Times as "perhaps the world's biggest movie star"". There are many sources available, as discussed on the talk page, but only one was used in this version. The 'In the media' section discusses the subjects popularity, so the lead needs some sort of summary of that section. It is important for readers to know the magnitude of the subject's popularity. If we agree to remove the original statement per your concerns, how do you feel about some of the alternatives that were presented on the talk page, which tone it down such as, "He has been referred to as one of the world's biggest film stars in the Times, the Guardian, and The Los Angeles Times."? How would you choose to include something of this nature?

Talk:Battle of_Karameh#Jordanian_jets

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Makeandtoss on 18:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Battle of Karameh (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Makeandtoss (talk · contribs)
• Bad Dryer (talk · contribs)
• Poliocretes (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Out of the tens of thousands of soldiers engaged in the battle and out of the hundreds of sources on this battle, there is only one source claiming Israel shot down two Jordanian aircrafts, the same source whose author is an Israeli. The claim is followed by two inline citations on sources, of which neither support the claim! Not only has no one mentioned anything about bringing down two airplanes, but no one mentioned anything about any Jordanian participation in aerial combat. Not to mention the fact that one of the two sources following the claim, is a 1984 publication by the Israeli army that explicitly says that the Israeli aircrafts met no aerial opposition!!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion, but Bad Dryer keeps bringing up invalid points and the discussion seems to be turning into an illogical loop.

How do you think we can help?

Prevent the addition of false and baseless information

Summary of dispute by Bad Dryer

The material is sourced to an academic expert - a Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Davis, who is the former head of the Graduate School of Government and Policy and of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, as well as the former academic director of the M.A. Program at the Israeli Defense Forces' National Defense College. It was published by an impeccable academic publisher - the University of Michigan Press, which has performed peer review and fact checking on it. It is used in multiple places in the article in question for other facts that are not in dispute. One can't simply remove materials sourced to such a clear Reliable Source based only on the fact that it is the only source in which the claim is made.

Summary of dispute by Poliocretes

I have said all I have to say on the matter on the article talk page. I was asked for an opinion and gave it. I have nothing further to say. Poliocretes (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of_Karameh#Jordanian_jets discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been considerable discussion on the talk page, and the filing editor has notified the other editors. I am not opening the case for discussion at this time, but it appears that the case is ready to be opened by a volunteer moderator. Please keep discussion, except for a statement by the one editor who has not yet commented, to a minimum until the case is opened. All comments, both before and after opening, should be civil and concise and should comment on content only, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: I'll be taking this case for moderated discussion once all the participants have made their dispute summary. I'm now waiting for @Poliocretes:'s summary. Although encouraged, participation here is purely voluntary. If the one editor doesn't wish and (or) not making their statement in 24 hours, this case will be opened for discussion without them. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Hello and welcome to DRN. I'm taking this case for moderated discussion and will be your moderator till the end of the case, unless otherwise stated. Other editors who don't have their names in the list, may chime in at any given time if they are interested. Before going into our discussions, let me point out some basic rules to make this discussion as friction-less as possible. 1)Please check the discussion at least once in every 48 hours. (failing to do so, may get this case closed as stale) 2)Comment only on the content and not on the contributor. Personal attacks/Harassment are not tolerated and will have this case closed. 3)Try not to edit the disputed area of the article until the case here is closed. 4)Discuss the issue here, so that we'll have better chances of solving this dispute 5)And last but not the least, please be civil and concise. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 17:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

First round of statements:

Statement by Moderator:

Based on what I've seen, looks like the point of dispute is whether or not two Jordanian aircraft were shot down by Israel. We have one source from Zeev Maoz verifying that. And since that has been challenged on the grounds of conflict of interests, do we have any other reliable sources stating so? If there is none and there are sources stating otherwise, we'll attribute that statement to Maoz. Please keep your statements concise. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 18:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Makeandtoss:

There are zero other reliable and unreliable sources stating that Israel shot down two Jordanian planes. Not only do other reliable sources not mention anything about downed Jordanian planes, no one even hints or mentions any Jordanian aerial participation. Even Israel explicitly refuted the claim! Assuming, this dubious claim gets a place in the article, this claim should at least not be placed in the infobox. Rather, should be placed at the casualties section where we can clearly say that this claim is dubious.--Makeandtoss (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bad Dryer:

I don't think the claim was disputed on the ground of conflict of interest. It was disputed on the grounds that no other sources make that claim. I am not familiar with any Wikipedia policy that says that if we only have one source- but it is a reliable source (here: academic historian, published by an academic press) it needs to be attributed. That source is used in multiple places in the article, without in-text attribution. Bad Dryer (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000:

I added myself because I just did some study of the problem. To summarize: this is an example where a normally-reliable historian made a simple mistake. I submit that this explanation is certain beyond reasonable doubt and so the claim should be omitted.

In more detail: Moaz wrote that two Jordanian planes were shot down and gave two sources (one in English and one in Hebrew). No hint is given that the claim is not supported by the sources, which a professional historian like Moaz would have added if he intended to claim that the sources are wrong. In fact both sources refer to two Israeli planes and do not mention any Jordanian planes. One of the sources (an official magazine of the Israeli military) even states that there were no Jordanian planes. The only reasonable explanation for this is that Moaz wrote "Jordanian" by mistake. It doesn't need to have been more than a typo. The information should be omitted as suggested in this essay, with the policy WP:IAR in support. See the talk page for citations and extra explanation. Zero^talk 08:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Follow-on statements:

@Bad Dryer: I do accept that is a reliable source. But reliable sources are not always non-biased (Bias in sources). Per WP:ONUS, Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Second, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[11] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: *surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;. So, we need more than that one source to verify that claim. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 06:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I did my research and found literally zero sources making that claim.--Makeandtoss (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: This case will be closed in 24 hours if Bad Dryer doesn't make his point within that interval. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 09:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Foundation for_Economic_Education#Hillside_doesnt_matter

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 107.107.61.170 on 01:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC).

Talk:Jack Mulcahy_(actor)#.23

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jmulcahy1 on 20:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC).

Talk:Health care in the United States

– New discussion.

Filed by 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 on 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Health care in the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CFCF (talk · contribs)
• Drbogdan (talk · contribs)
• Materialscientist (talk · contribs)
• Escape Orbit (talk · contribs)
• Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs)
• Ozzie10aaaa (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a conflict on whether the several articles that relate to the Healthcare of the United States contain excessive negativity and are biased towards such negative opinions, including the sources that are largely opinion based and not reliable. It can potentially affect the neutrality and reliability of the articles in question as well.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing the issue constructively with the user on the article's talk page. Notifying another administrator for possible assistance as well. The admin is: User:The Blade of the Northern Lights

How do you think we can help?

Provide neutral insights on this issue and give a constructive decision on how to resolve this heated problem regarding an important aspect of Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by CFCF

The filing user has provided no sources for any statements whatsoever and simply deletes properly sourced material they find objectionable. There are other parties present in the discussion, also detailed in the currently active post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Health_system_article. Even a cursory glance at the page histories [12] show that this single editor has seen unilateral opposition (from at least 6 other editors) and is now engaging in yet another time sink. (I have added more editors to the list of involved parties, because they have either edited the articles in question or commented about the behavior of the IP-user)
Please disregard this notice and close as appropriate. CFCF 💌 📧 22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Drbogdan

I also agree with the comments made by "User:CFCF" re the issue(s) presented (hopefully, this is a better location for my comment than my earlier post below) - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MaterialScientist

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Escape Orbit

I have some sympathy for the specific issue that filing editor 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 raised regarding the view that "Issues like injuries, homicides and sexually transmitted infections cannot be atributed to the system of healthcare or can be atributed at most a little."

However, when it was suggested that perhaps the content in question be moved to a new, more suitable article (like Health in the USA), this was rejected on the grounds that this article would also "portray the U.S. in a negative light". So the chief concern isn't accuracy or neutrality, but the image of the U.S.?

The other thrust of the filing editor's argument is that the fact was poorly sourced. It was sourced from an academic paper written for the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Some may disagree with the conclusions reached, but there are no grounds for questioning its reliability as a source.

The topic of this article can be controversial, and naturally opinions differ. It would be more profitable use of time to balance the opinions (and facts that they are based on) with others authoritative sources, rather than simply requesting that content is removed because you don't like it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Flyer22 Reborn

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Ozzie10aaaa

I would concur with CFCF appraisal of the situation on the article in question,( and have little to add beyond his statement above) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Health care in the United States discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Keep discussion to a minimum before being opened. JQTriple7 (talk)

Once again, CFCF is attacking me for my efforts to improve Wikipedia, even if some appear to not adhere to the editing protocols. We need a constructive way to resolve this problem, not just simply demanding this discussion to be closed and disregarded without any user input from others and let the issue prevail with possibly even more negative consequences. I agree that I have deleted too much without giving an appropriate edit summary but since the changes have been undone before this dispute occurred, I think we should move on to resolving the dispute and the quality of the articles itself. 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note:  Verified There has been sufficient prior discussion on the talk page. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep discussion to a mimimum before being opened. JQTriple7 (talk)

FWIW - Thank you *very much* for inviting me to comment on the issue - yes - *entirely* agree with *all* the recent related comments above (as well as on the talk-page) made by "User:CFCF" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC) You just copied and pasted what you wrote from the Talk Page. Not needed for this discussion. Also, going back to what CFCF said about all the editors opposing this, not all of the users listed are actively opposed against my good faith intentions, some actually want this discussion to occur, not the other way around. 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Not all participants have been notified on their talk pages. Filing party should do so, otherwise I will do so shortly. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Note to participants: Please keep discussion to a minimum before the case is opened by a volunteer. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note:  Verified All participants have been notified on their talk pages. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Recusing myself from volunteering on this request as I have interactions with at least two editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias

– New discussion.

Filed by Miesianiacal on 18:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Miesianiacal (talk · contribs)
• GoodDay (talk · contribs)
• DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs)
• Neve-selbert (talk · contribs)
• Killuminator (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Editors are divided on whether or not content relating to Elizabeth II at List of the oldest living state leaders is both biased and inaccurate. Now at the level of revert warring.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion at the article talk page and User talk:Neve-selbert.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a mediating service, part of which may involve reminding dispute participants of policies and guidelines.

Summary of dispute by Neve-selbert

I concur with GoodDay; in her positions as Queen, she is predominately referred to as being Queen of the United Kingdom (rather Queen of England, a popular misconception) rather than as Queen of Jamaica, Queen of the Bahamas or even Queen of Pakistan. Instead of over-complicating the article with the inclusion of every single sovereign state and entity she has ever reigned over in her entire lifetime (derived originally from the British throne), we can simply add a link to the Commonwealth realms, and readers can click this link and understand why, exactly she is the monarch—and has been the monarch—of almost a quarter of a hundred states. To follow the argument of Miesianiacal would be to remove the link within the table pertaining to the other Commonwealth realms, as he would make this collective group redundant by naming tirelessly and individually every single sovereign throne she has ever sat on. Neve-selbert (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GoodDay

IMHO, there shouldn't be any disagreement at the article-in-question. Verifable sources will easily proove that Elizabeth II is associated mostly with the United Kingdom. She was born there, got married there, was crowned there, will likely be buried there. Because she resides predominantly there, the UK is the only Commonwealth realm which doesn't have or require a governor general. Let's be honest, aswell. Do we often see headlines like Queen of Tuvalu, visits.... or howabout Queen of Antigua and Barbados, visited....? we must consider WP:WEIGHT here. Furthermore, having the United Kingdom and the other realms spread out into the article-in-question, in such a manner (instead of just having United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwelath realms), is un-necessary. For the article's structure, we should go with the consice & compact version. So again, there really shouldn't be a dispute at all. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Miesianaical

In the row for Elizabeth II, in the 'state' column, there is currently depicted a British flag preceding the words "United Kingdom and 15 other states". In the 'position' column is "Queen (1952-present)". The problems with the aforementioned are: a) Elizabeth II has been queen of only four of the 16 realms since 1952. She became queen of the 12 others at various later dates. b) The Commonwealth realms (what the "United Kingdom and 15 other states" is indirectly referring to) are not collectively represented by the British flag. Even if the flag is intended to be associated only with the words "United Kingdom", it is still possible for readers unfamiliar with the topic of the Commonwealth realms to interpret it as being associated with the whole bloc of countries. c) The UK holds no special status apart from, let alone "above", the other realms. Some editors claim it does by virtue of not having a governor-general and the monarch will die and be buried there. However, those are differences and "different" doesn't necessarily equate to "superior" or justify special treatment. This fact is recognised in the row for Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who was both President of France and Co-Prince of Andorra; it does not say in the list "President of France and head of one other state", though Giscard is (some editors would likely say) "known mostly" as President of France, will be buried there, had a representative in Andorra, etc. And d) not only are the not-UK realms relegated to second class status relative to the UK, but to every other country in the list, as well. The list consistently provides the flag and name of every country except when it comes to the "15 other states". Again, Andorra and France are both given full display and flags next to Giscard.

The edit I first made on 18 November seemed, to me, to resolve all those issues in a way that at least provided no reason to object. It still "favoured" the UK by way of keeping it at the top of the sub-list (though, that also follows the established protocol for listing the reams), yet made the other realms no different to the UK or every other country in the larger list by way of showing their names and corresponding national flags; it is more consistent with the list as a whole. Additionally, it corrected the misinformation on the length of Elizabeth II's reign as queen of 12 of the realms.

One editor stated my change did not recognise the countries Elizabeth II formerly reigned as queen of. However, the present iteration of the list doesn't, either. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Killuminator

The cause of this dispute is the perceived bias in favor of the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is head of state not only in the UK, but also for many other countries. These countries (Canada, Jamaica, Australia etc.) were completely omitted. Since the numbers of countries is over a dozen, some contributors are in favor of simply stating that she rules the UK + these other countries and some contributors wish to enumerate them claiming bias. Many users agree that the Queen is mostly associated with the UK (she lives in the UK, she's British etc.) and claim that giving same weight to other countries is not necessary and that this bias does not exist. I took a look at the UN website to see how they address the Queen. She is mainly referred to as the the Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other UN Member States which prompts me to believe that this is an adopted norm in international relations. In many ways , my stance is similar to that of user GoodDay so I will avoid redundancy. --Killuminator (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

•  Volunteer note: Recusing myself as a volunteer on this request as I have had interactions with at least one participant.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note:  Verified There has been sufficient prior discussion on the article talk page. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Not all participants have been notified on their talk pages of this request. I will do so shortly if filing party does not. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Question: Is DerbyCountyinNZ included as a participant? Killuminator only rejoined the dispute at the list talk page after GoodDay pinged him today and he made his first comment after I placed this request. There is a general notice about this request at the list talk page, but I will leave a note at Killuminator's talk page, as well. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Update: I've invited DerbyCountyinNZ. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
•  To DRN volunteers: I have manually added DerbyCountyinNZ to the users involved list. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Note to participants: Please keep discussion to a minimum before the case is opened by a volunteer. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note:  Verified All parties have been notified. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Note to participants: Are the involved parties inclined to wait for DerbyCountyinNZ before we begin, or should we start without him/her? Also, will Killuminator be joining us? JQTriple7 (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps give it 24 hours from time of posting this request? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

He will be joining us, shortly. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)