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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Rock in Rio (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Mortyman (talk ·contribs)
• JimboB (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

I have sadly been in dispute with user JimboB for several years now regarding this issue and JimboB seems to be hell bent on not accepting any sources that disagrees with his views. The commentary has become unfriendly and totally unacceptable.

In 1991 A-ha played for a record crowd of 198.000 people at Rock in Rio festival. This is a well known and accepted fact around the world, except perhaps in the US, where A-ha has not been much in media since the mid 80s. I have over several years now provided several links to sources that substantiate this, including the official Rock in Rio site. However JimboB has never accepted this and keeps on reverting the info, claiming that the sources are not good enough, even thoguh it's the official Rock in Rio website and also the biggest newspaper/Tv channel in Brazil, namely Globo Brazil.

JimboB has provided newspaper clippings that mention a very different number from the day, however this is no doubt info that is from the start of the concert / day.

JimboB has had some rather unplasent comments that I find problematic, such as: "Stop being childish. Journalistic sources will always take precedence over promotional fluff, especially promotional fluff misguided by years of preposterous inflated numbers being pushed by fans like you. I will always delete your numbers because they are FALSE"

Just some sources:

• Rock in Rio official site mention (see year 1991 bottom of page)https://rockinrio.com/rio/pt-br/historia/

• https://g1.globo.com/jornaldaglobo/0,,MUL1057248-16021,00-AHA+SE+APRESENTAM+EM+SP+E+NO+RIO.html

• https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g245/embopics/img072.jpg (Scan of Guinnes Book world of records)

• https://g1.globo.com/musica/rock-in-rio/2015/noticia/2015/09/-ha-em-1991-e-eleito-momento-mais-marcante-de-30-anos-do-rock-rio.html (Article from Rock in rio 2015 where A-ha's record in 1991 is mentioned)

• https://www.tenhomaisdiscosqueamigos.com/2023/05/07/a-ha-rock-in-rio-recorde/?fbclid=IwAR06U4E_ru7Ilz2WMOXyOdX0PCTedY0gjoLBHiENtrQyKKfRDw3fpZxPAYg

• British newspaper clipping: A-ha beats Macca and Guns N roseshttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Rock_in_Rio_II_1991.jpg

• Encyclopædia Britannica:https://www.britannica.com/place/Maracana-Stadium

Recently Jimbo B has reverted the number 198.000 to 100.000 to now no number at all and removed all my sources from article.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe that the official Rock in Rio site and their mention of A-ha should be accepted as proof of the 198.000 number. As I have tried to convey to Jimbo B, Why would the official Rock in Rio website credit A-ha with the 198.000,a Norwegian band of all things and not a local band or lets say Paul McCartney or Guns N'Roses, if it was not true?

First, I have requested earlier today a third party view on this. I am bringing this to moderators' attention. Timelogs should prove this. Mortyman is merely taking my lead.

Second, my sources, which I have repeatedly added to the article, are clippings from O Globo and Jornal do Brasil, two of the main newspapers of Brazil back when this concert took place, which, in conjunction, make my case clear. These are first-hand sources, taken from officials by reporters at the festival's site, during their coverage of the event (not numbers inflated by hearsay after the fact).

As for Mortyman's sources, over the years they have come primarily from a-ha fan sites, even when later echoed by hurried third hand reporting or by the event's website for promotional purposes.

For years now, fan clubs have tried and for a while succeeded in promoting this narrative, even with Guinness which no longer publishes those numbers - which are inexact, anyway, since whatever number of people were there, they were there for a festival with plenty of acts, not a single act.

No numbers of concert attendance can be more accurate than those collected in site by independent reporting. My two clippings say clearly 100.000 for a-ha, not 198.000 (Maracanã possibly didn't even hold as many people).

As for "unfriendly", "unpleasant" comments, one does get flustered after ten years of trying to stop misinformation.

Thanks.

P.S. I suggest you take a look at Mortyman's history of edits regarding a-ha in other pages as well.

AreUser:Mortyman andUser:JimboB ready for moderated discussion? Please readthe rules, and, in your reply, state that you agree to the rules. If so, please state concisely what part of the article you want changed (or what part of the article you want left the same and the other person wants changed). It is not necessary at this time to tell why you want it changed or left the same. We can get to that later.Robert McClenon (talk)16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

i wish to keep the headline inhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_in_Rio#Rock_in_Rio_2_(1991) as is, for I consider the current version the correct one and the sources presented the most accurate, for reasons stated above. Thank you.JimboB (talk)10:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Please sign your statements by putting four tildes, ~~~~, at the end of your post. This provides information to both humans and bots.Robert McClenon (talk)17:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

User JimboB has for about 8 years now kept reverting A-ha's 198.000 uadience number at the Rock in Rio concert even thoguh official Rock min Rio website states this numberto be correct. The number from the Rock in Rio site should be the one used in my opinion. Yes I am and agree to rulesMortyman (talk)15:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the content disagreement is about a statement that, in 1991,A-ha performed to an audience of 198,000 people. Is that the only article content issue?

If that is an issue, regardless of whether it is the only one, I would like each editor to state in one paragraph why the statement should be made, or why it should not be made. Also, if differentreliable sources are making different reports about the crowd for that performance, should the encyclopedia report both viewpoints, with attribution?Robert McClenon (talk)16:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The Rock in Rio own websites states that A-ha played for 198.000 people. Why would the official site say that if it was not true. Why A-ha, a Norwegain band of all things and not a Brasilian band or Guns N Roses or Paul McCartney or someone else ?.

As already mentioned: Just some sources:

Rock in Rio official site mention (see year 1991 bottom of page)https://rockinrio.com/rio/pt-br/historia/

https://g1.globo.com/jornaldaglobo/0,,MUL1057248-16021,00-AHA+SE+APRESENTAM+EM+SP+E+NO+RIO.html

https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g245/embopics/img072.jpg (Scan of Guinnes Book world of records)

https://g1.globo.com/musica/rock-in-rio/2015/noticia/2015/09/-ha-em-1991-e-eleito-momento-mais-marcante-de-30-anos-do-rock-rio.html (Article from Rock in rio 2015 where A-ha's record in 1991 is mentioned)

https://www.tenhomaisdiscosqueamigos.com/2023/05/07/a-ha-rock-in-rio-recorde/?fbclid=IwAR06U4E_ru7Ilz2WMOXyOdX0PCTedY0gjoLBHiENtrQyKKfRDw3fpZxPAYg

British newspaper clipping: A-ha beats Macca and Guns N roseshttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Rock_in_Rio_II_1991.jpgEncyclopædia Britannica:https://www.britannica.com/place/Maracana-Stadium

I believe the official Rock in Rio website number should be used, as there is no reason to doubt them.

The Maracana stadium back then in 1991 was capable of an audience of over 200.000. Today it could not accept such an audience as the stadium sat derelict for many years and with the newly refurbishment, the audience number has been reduced.

Mortyman (talk)07:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It is the only point of contention among us, yes.

The sources I added to the article, currently in place (historical clippings in Portuguese from O Globo and Jornal do Brasil, reputed newspapers with their own pages on Wikipedia), were collected by reporters in site while covering the actual event. Those numbers, the same ones I remember from back in the day, show that not only the January 26th night, headlined by a-ha, didn't attract 198.000 people, but it wasn't even the biggest crowd in the whole event (that would have been over 100.000 people, on January 20th, a Guns n' Roses headlined night). The inflated a-ha numbers, a urban legend initiated by fans, have gained traction on the internet over time and went on to be echoed by websites, even the festival's own, in poorly fact-checked pieces, done naively or with promotional purposes in mind. For a while, even the Guinness Book of Records jumped on the bandwagon, which seemed to give credence to it (it was apparently listed as "biggest crowd gathered by a single artist", which is inexact regardless of the actual numbers, since Rock in Rio is a big music festival and other six acts performed on the same night)). I argue that no attendance numbers can be more accurate than those collected from the press directly from officials on performance's night. The 198.000 claim is a huge exaggeration, concocted by fans of a particular act to promote it (arguably Maracanã didn't even hold as many people, although this would be a separate discussion).JimboB (talk)19:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the issue is a contested claim that 198,000 people heardA-ha perform. If so, the reasonable compromise is to state that as a disputed claim, with sources supporting the claim, and optionally sources disputing the claim. Can we agree that the compromise is to state that some sources have said thatA-ha played for an audience of 198,000?Robert McClenon (talk)20:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

JimboB is clearly not as upp to date on Maracana audiences as he claimshttps://www.rsssfbrasil.com/miscellaneous/attendances.htm Please note that these are numbers from football matches where only the seating capacity was used, not the mat itself. Furthermore, Maracana was uppdated in recent years and it now takes less audience than beforehttps://web.archive.org/web/20120922062246/http://www.estadao.com.br/especiais/maracana-fica-mais-moderno-sem-abrir-mao-de-sua-historia%2C182163.htm .JimboB referred to the Maracana page on wikipedia and claims that the page says nothing about Maracana being laying dormant and that the capacity hasn't changed. Well read the article. Read headings "21st century, renovations and 2014 FIFA World Cup" and "Disrepair after the 2016 Summer Olympics" . Is JimboB disputing the record crowds of Paul Mccarthney and Tina Turner too or preacher Billy Graham ? Cause he seems to only have a problem with A-HA. Again the official Rock in Rio website says that A-ha played for 198.000. They are not mentioning any number for any other artists. Why are they mentioning A-ha's concert of all artists ?Mortyman (talk)20:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe - in fact, being from Rio and having actually been at the 1991 Rock in Rio, I KNOW - the sources that support the claim are not reliable on this matter (not to mention ludicrous claims like "Maracanã having sat derelict for many years", which Mortyman just came up with and has no factual basis whatsoever as the lead section of the Maracanã article itself will prove (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maracan%C3%A3_Stadium). As silly as this point of contention may be, I believe the solidity of first-hand sources should prevail and that Wikipedia should be kept free of fan fluff. I insist: numbers delivered directly from organizers and/or city officials to the press on performance's day are neutral and reliable. Inflated claims whose origin is blurry, even if later echoed by journalistic sources deceived by propaganda, are not.JimboB (talk)03:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that my question has been answered. It appears that the statement thatA-ha performed to an audience of 198,000 is commonly provided, and also often disputed. The reasonable compromise would seem to be to state just that, to state that some sources say thatA-ha performed to an audience of 198,000, and that other sources dispute that claim. Ifreliable sources disagree, or reasonable people disagree on whether the sources are reliable, I suggest that we state that, and let the readers know that there is disagreement.

If either of you do not want this compromise, please provide a policy-based reason why you do not want it.Robert McClenon (talk)02:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I find it difficult to take JimboB seriously when he uses words like hoax and falsehood, and with such certainty. He seems to be the only one that disputes this. Inno way is it commo ly disputed. He also seem to believe that A-HA has the possibility to fool both the record label, official Rock in Rio site, international and local media. It is borderline conspiratorial. I have provided plenty of proof and I have also provided proof that the Maracana stadium was fully capable of such an audience in 1991. I was hoping for an end here.

Why would Rock in Rio want to promote A-HA with such a number instead of a much bigger artist ?

I am of the firm belief, that Rock in Rio website should be the authority here, as we don't know when local media got their numbers. Was it at the beginning of concert, midway or at the end ?

A-ha in 1991 is elected the most remarkable moment of 30 years of Rock in Rio

https://g1.globo.com/musica/rock-in-rio/2015/noticia/2015/09/-ha-em-1991-e-eleito-momento-mais-marcante-de-30-anos-do-rock-rio.html

The surprise hits with the largely Brazilian festival audience was the Norwegian group a-ha

https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19910208&slug=1265195

1991 Record attendance at the worlds largest stadium. The second Rock in rio did not end without breaking a record, with the biggest paying audience for a show so far, set by the band A-ha on 26th of January with no less than 198.000 people

https://rockinrio.com/rio/pt-br/historia/

I can accept a compromise such as

" According to the official Rock in Rio organizers, A-ha played for 198.000 people in 1991. However this number has been debated. Guinnes Book of Records says 195.000 "

However it is clear that there is no path to compromise here. After 8 years it is very dissepointingMortyman (talk)17:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree vehemently with the compromise. I would citehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_create_hoaxes among Wikipedia policies and guidelines since this IS a hoax. This conflict has been going on for so long because it took quite a long time for the original sources to become available, for Brazilian newspapers were slow on digitizing their archival content. Meanwhile, the more bombastic story was gaining traction on the internet. And, in my view, this all boils down to comparing sources and determining their reliability. You, Robert, mentioned yourself the issue of Reliable Sources. That is precisely what I have been promoting. By sheer logic, who should be able to say for sure, or even approximately, how many people were present at a certain event? Whoever was actually there and documented it (my sources)? Or second-hand reporting and promotional links (the alternative sources)?

Guys, if you would care to hear me, I can offer additional context and personal experience in our talk pages, so we don't flood this space. But please trust me: I KNOW this info to be wrong. And I cannot compromise on something I KNOW to be a falsehood.

Thank you for listening, however Wikipedia decides to rule on this.

P.S. Mortyman, I never questioned Tina Turner's or Paul McCartney's numbers for the simple fact that they are reliable, documented by solid sources. Rock in Rio doesn't care to put them on their website because they never played the festival. They played in the stadium. Different things.JimboB (talk)13:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We have what appears to be an irreconcilable difference of opinion as to what we should say is said byreliable sources. I don't think that we will be able to resolve this dispute as resolved, but I would like to minimize the contention. Some sources have stated thatA-ha performed to an audience of 198,000. Another editor has stated that the claim that there was an audience of 198,000 for A-ha was aWP:HOAX. Please either provide one or two statements with references supporting the claim that there was an audience of 198,000, or one or two statements with references that state that there has been a hoax.Robert McClenon (talk)06:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if I understood your question correctly. You wanted statements and sources to the 198.000 number ? Here goes.

• " 1991 Record attendance at the worlds largest stadium. The second Rock in rio did not end without breaking a record, with the biggest paying audience for a show so far, set by the band A-ha on 26th of January with no less than 198.000 people "https://rockinrio.com/rio/pt-br/historia/ (See bottom page and 1991 )

• "The trio took almost 200,000 people, in the crowded Maracanã, to a collective pleasure. "https://g1.globo.com/jornaldaglobo/0,,MUL1057248-16021,00-AHA+SE+APRESENTAM+EM+SP+E+NO+RIO.html

• " A-ha in 1991 is elected the most remarkable moment of 30 years of Rock in Rio. The concert by the Norwegian trio A-ha for 198,000 fans, at Maracanã, at Rock in Rio in 1991, was elected the most memorable moment in the festival's 30 years, in a poll with votes from G1 readers "https://g1.globo.com/musica/rock-in-rio/2015/noticia/2015/09/-ha-em-1991-e-eleito-momento-mais-marcante-de-30-anos-do-rock-rio.html

• A-ha beat Macca record. 20.000 more than Guns N Roseshttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Rock_in_Rio_II_1991.jpg

• Guinnes Book of Records:https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g245/embopics/img072.jpg

Calling A-ha's numbers a hoax is not acceptable in any way shape or form. Hoax means something criminal. There is no reaspon to claim such a thing. I will not tolerate it.

As for Jimbo B ... He might not have questioned Tina Turner and Paul McCartneys numbers, due to the fact that they were not part of the festival, but JimboB has certianly questioned if the Maracana can take such numbers . Why is he questioning A-ha's numbers and not Tina Turner and Paul McCartney's ?

Mortyman (talk)10:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Excerpt from one of the Jornal do Brasil sources currently in place (my translation, since it's in Portuguese):

Link:https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=0qX8s2k1IRwC&dat=19910128&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

Last paragraph of the front page summary from January 28, 1991 (that's Monday, two days after the contentious Saturday night performance). It's at the bottom of the page. The words Rock in Rio on the headline ("Rock in Rio termina sem espetáculo de Gil") will guide you there.

"Yesterday, Maracanã received an audience of around 40.000, much less than the approximately 100.000 who packed the stadium the night before to watch the Norwegian trio a-ha's concert."

Again, this doesn't come from 2015 articles written by understaffed teams relying on Google research or from interested parties. This ishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jornal_do_Brasil reporting from the event itself.

Excerpt from a second source fromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Globo, which I JUST collected from their archive and can add later to the article, if allowed. Indeed, it brings different - albeit similar - numbers.

Link:https://duyt0k3aayxim.cloudfront.net/PDFs_XMLs_paginas/o_globo/1991/01/28/03-segundo_caderno/ge280191003SEG1-1234_g.jpg

Second paragraph of the top article ("O rock no embalo da chuva"), also from Monday, January 28, 1991. First sentence (again, my translation).

"Second biggest audience of the festival (beaten only by the first Sunday's), the approximately 110.000 people packed tight in the grandstands and in the field started to disperse after a-ha's performance."

So this one says 110.000, which is close to 100.000 - and still it states clearly it wasn't even the biggest crowd in the EVENT, let alone the stadium's history, much less OF ALL TIME.

And now, Robert, if you'll allow me, since this is a side issue (you're welcome to read, anyway):

Mortyman,

Also from O Globo, in April 23 1990:https://duyt0k3aayxim.cloudfront.net/PDFs_XMLs_paginas/o_globo/1990/04/23/03-segundo_caderno/ge230490001SEG1-1234_g.jpg

Second sentence of the first paragraph: "More than 180.000 people at Maracanã, an audience record that surpassed Frank Sinatra's."

Now, allowing those 180.000 in was borderline reckless. Fortunately no tragedy happened since people barely had any space to move. On the grandstands, often there was someone sitting on the steps and someone standing right behind that person ON THE SAME STEP.

How do I know that?

I WAS there.

180.000 people. Barely any space to move your elbows. I KNOW that 18.000 additional people simply DID NOT FIT inside the available space.JimboB (talk)12:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I will start with two comments. First, I mostly but not entirely agree withUser:Mortyman about referring to ahoax. A hoax is not necessarily criminal, but it does mean deliberate falsification. Second,User:JimboB, your statement that you were there is aprimary report. The issue is what secondary sources have reported, and which of them arereliable. Then I have some questions.Robert McClenon (talk)01:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

1.User:JimboB – Are you stating that the report of an audience of 198,000 people forA-ha is a falsification, or only that it is completely wrong?

2. If you, JimboB, are stating that it was a falsification, can you say who originated the false claim? (That question does not need to be answered, but if it cannot be answered, it is more likely an error than a hoax.)

3. If you, JimboB, are stating that it is wrong, and is notverifiable, do you know what is the source of the error? (That question does not need to be answered. If the report failsverification, we don't need to know where it came from, but it would be a nice-to-know.)

4. JimboB: What are you saying was the audience forA-ha? Was it 100,000, or was it 180,000?

5.User:Mortyman – What is the earliest report of an audience of 198,000?

6. Anyone: What do the newspapers immediately after the performance state was the size of the audience? In this case, the reports soonest after the event are probably the mostreliable. (With regard to history, more recent scholarly writings are preferred. In this case, the reports closest in time to the event are preferred.)

5. User:Mortyman – What is the earliest report of an audience of 198,000?

Same evening or day after. It has always been 195.000 - 198.000. It has been reported in various international newsmedia over the years. I refer to already posted urls to article from British newspaper, Guinnes Book of records, early 90's and Globo articles from 2015 as well as official Rock in Rio website. The number has always been what it is and to think that A-ha has managed to fool official Rock in Rio website, various international media, including Globo and Guinnes Boook of Records for over 35 years is proposturous.

As already mewntioned we don't know when the articles that JimboB is referring to was written. Was in at the start of the show, or at the end ? How many people came to the show in the end ? News segment from Globo Brazil 2015 about their show in 1991 and the show they were about to play in 2015. It gives you an indication of size both in numbers and in images.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrFoIP5e_eQ

MTV 1991 A-ha show in Maracana the only one to be sold outhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rtYwtiejtw

More info from official Rock in Rio site:

A-Ha was the big star on January 26, 1991. The fifth artist to perform, in a day with 7 attractions, appeared with some frequency in the country's hit charts and that led many people to Maracanã. The audience record of 198,000 people put the band in the Guinness Book of Records. The Norwegian trio played a show full of hits like “Hunting High and Low” and “You are the One”.

https://rockinrio.com/rio/novidade/retrospectiva-rock-in-rio-26-de-janeiro-de-1991/

Please also note that JimboB finds reports from Globo reputable, just not in more recent news segments ? He finds them reputable when it supports his view only ?

Mortyman (talk)20:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

1. It is completely wrong, as the links provided by me on fifth statement show. As to...

2 and 3. ....the origin of this, at this point it is lost in time. Somewhere around the 1990's, I would say. By the early 2000's, this claim had already gained traction.

Like I said before, the Brazilian newspapers were very slow in digitizing their archival content. For that reason, for many years the inflated claim circulated unchallenged. I, for one, always knew it was wrong but, for a while, couldn't give any evidence of it for reliable sources were unavailable online. Fan clubs had already been promoting their own story for a long time at that point.

Now, were fan clubs AWARE that it was a falsehood when it started or this is just a matter of hearsay being shared irresponsibly and naively? Who can say at this point?

However, the minute sources become available and prove your story to be wrong and you stick to it anyway because it is more convenient... doesn't it become falsehood from that point on, even if not malicious? And the first sources became available quite some time ago.

4. O Globo says 110.000, Jornal do Brasil says 100.000, similar numbers. Both are reputable newspapers, the two most important ones in Rio back in 1991, and they have their own pages on Wikipedia to prove. Any of those are fine by me. 180.000 are the Paul McCartney numbers, which I provided for Mortyman to see (THAT is considered the Maracanã audience record but, since it wasn't a Rock in Rio concert, it needs no inclusion in the article).

As for question number6, I refer again to the links I provided on the fourth statement. They are literally from two days after the performance. They are first-hand sources, the most reliable, like I've been saying.JimboB (talk)13:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

My first comment is that the officialRock in Rio web site is not an independent secondary source.

This is a dispute about thereliability of sources.User:JimboB,User:Mortyman - I am asking each of you to list the two best sources that you can that support your position. I will ask the editors atthe reliable source noticeboard, and we will see whether any of the sources reliably state thatA-ha played to an audience of more than 190,000.Robert McClenon (talk)04:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

If you have any other questions, please ask them now.Robert McClenon (talk)

• "O trio Pop norueguês teve o maior público não apenas do evento como também de toda a história na época, levando 198 mil pessoas ao Maracanã durante seu show e quebrando recorde do Guinness Book. Ainda assim, os nórdicos acabaram ignorados pela mídia brasileira e mundial mesmo com o sucesso estrondoso de “Take on Me”, que impulsionou toda essa fama."

https://www.tenhomaisdiscosqueamigos.com/2023/05/07/a-ha-rock-in-rio-recorde/

• "Eles alcançaram sucesso planetário nas décadas de 1980 e 1990. No Brasil, chegaram a tocar para quase 200 mil pessoas. Mas nesta quarta-feira, em São Paulo, se exibem para uma plateia menor. Antes de matar a saudade do público brasileiro, os noruegueses da banda A-Ha conversaram com a repórter Marina Araújo."

https://g1.globo.com/jornaldaglobo/0,,MUL1057248-16021,00-AHA+SE+APRESENTAM+EM+SP+E+NO+RIO.html

• From BBC Brazil and Globo: A-ha played for 198.000:https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/geral-62764029 /https://g1.globo.com/pop-arte/musica/rock-in-rio/2022/noticia/2022/09/02/se-a-vida-comecasse-agora-22-curiosidades-sobre-o-rock-in-rio.ghtml

• " In 1991 it set a world record for the largest paying audience for a single band when 198,000 people came to see pop group A-ha."

https://www.britannica.com/place/Maracana-Stadium

• MTV 1991 A-ha show in Maracana the only one to be sold outhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rtYwtiejtw

I still insist that the info from official Rock in Rio site to be accepted, as there is no reason why Rock in Rio or Maracana should make up such info, to support a band from Norway if it was not correct.

• A-Ha was the big star on January 26, 1991. The fifth artist to perform, in a day with 7 attractions, appeared with some frequency in the country's hit charts and that led many people to Maracanã. The audience record of 198,000 people put the band in the Guinness Book of Records. The Norwegian trio played a show full of hits like “Hunting High and Low” and “You are the One”.

https://rockinrio.com/rio/novidade/retrospectiva-rock-in-rio-26-de-janeiro-de-1991/

• Rock in Rio official site mention (see year 1991 bottom of page)https://rockinrio.com/rio/pt-br/historia/

Mortyman (talk)05:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

There they are. The ones I shared before. Links from reputed newspapers from Monday edition (the concert happened on Saturday night). Numbers collected by reporters in site, checked on Sunday, published on Monday morning.

https://duyt0k3aayxim.cloudfront.net/PDFs_XMLs_paginas/o_globo/1991/01/28/03-segundo_caderno/ge280191003SEG1-1234_g.jpg (the mention is on the second paragraph of the top article)

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Globo

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=0qX8s2k1IRwC&dat=19910128&printsec=frontpage&hl=en (the mention is at the very bottom of the page)

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jornal_do_Brasil

JimboB (talk)13:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I inquired about the reliability of the sources atthe reliable source noticeboard. The RSN volunteer says that they consider the BBC Brazil post to be the most reliable source. The BBC Brazil news item supports the statement that 198,000 people heardA-ha. Can we resolve the article content dispute, or are there any remaining issues?Robert McClenon (talk)14:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, Robert. The BBC Brazil article is from 2022. You said it yourself that sources closest as possible to the event are preferrable, and I have given you exactly that: two newspaper articles from two days later, written by reporters who were actually there.

I saw what that editor wrote and it was a one sentence dismissal, basically - arguably driven by a mention of the news outlet most familiar to them. And, as strong as the BBC name may be, its article is a secondary source, informed by the internet, not by first hand experience.

My case relies exactly on the fact that years of misinformation made even reliable sources echo false information. After all, we all know about the crisis of journalism and how understaffed newsrooms are these days, with people relying on Google for research.

I know how tiresome this all is, believe me. But I do ask you to kindly reconsider that decision or give me a chance to talk to someone else about it in case you want out.

Thank you.JimboB (talk)18:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

We do not discuss the editing patterns of editors at DRN. We discuss article content at DRN. The question is what the article should say about the attendance.

User:JimboB raises a valid point, that the BBC Brazil report was a year after the event. I think thatRSN is the proper forum to discuss the reliability of sources. Please discuss your concern atthe Reliable Source Noticeboard.Robert McClenon (talk)00:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I stated, nine days ago, that I thought that a reasonable compromise would be to state that some sources say thatA-ha performed to an audience of 198,000, and that others dispute that claim.User:JimboB rejected that compromise, saying that the statement that the audience was 198,000 was a falsification. Are you,User:JimboB andUser:Mortyman, willing to accept the compromise that we state that some sources say thatA-ha performed to an audience of 198,000, and that others dispute the claim, and provide sources for both positions?Robert McClenon (talk)01:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I can accept the compromise, just to end this 8 + year nightmare with editor. I have given plenty of sources for the number and I have also provided sources that Maracana at the time could accomidate the amount of people, something that editor also questioned and where he clearly is wrong. I want an end to this, as the back and fort for over 8 years is just silly and time wasted. Every source that I have provided will have to be added to compromise text.Mortyman (talk)13:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a year after the event, Robert - if we're talking about the BBC link shared by Mortyman and which you submitted to other editors, it's from 2022! And that particular edition of the festival happened in 1991. Sources closest in time to the event are more reliable. You said it yourself.

I ask: can I insist on what I have conviction to be the truth - even on another forum if such option exists, so you can be personally free of this matter in case you prefer?

Or what you're telling me is: it's either accepting a compromise or we're going with Mortyman's version because an editor who was completely uninvolved with the issue took a quick look and said in less than ten words that BBC is the only source that matters, without looking into the specifics?

Before possibly accepting a compromise, I would just like to know if I have any other options.

Please let me know.JimboB (talk)02:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Before possibly accepting a compromise, I would just like to know if I have any other options. Please let me know.

I am a moderator and mediator, not a judge. I do not have authority over article content. The community has that authority. I do not specify the options as to the article, only as to how I will close this content dispute. I will not make a decision as to article content that does not have rough consensus, which means that in a dispute with two editors, I will not choose one version over another (unless one version is wrong based on policy). At this point, it appears that I have four possible choices as to how to close this content dispute:

1. I can close the dispute with a compromise if the editors agree to a compromise.

2. I can close the dispute as resolved if the editors agree to what RSN has said. That does not appear to be about to happen, but I list it as an option, and you can try to make a stronger case at RSN.

3. I can submit aRequest for Comments to the community.

4. I can fail the discussion. That will likely end up atWP:ANI, and then the survivors will edit the article.

Those are the options that I see for myself as mediator.Robert McClenon (talk)01:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

We still do not discuss the editing patterns of editors at DRN. (If any editor wants to discuss the editing patterns of another editor, they can readthe boomerang essay and then go toWP:ANI.)

You,User:JimboB, first declined to agree to the compromise that I offered, saying that the reports of an audience of 198,000 were a hoax. We went to RSN, and what we learned there is that reliable sources support the report of an audience of 198,000. Your choices are to agree to a compromise, to agree to rely on RSN, or to request an RFC.Robert McClenon (talk)01:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

A-ha is world wide known and recognized for that number. It was a Guinnes book record at the time for pop band. After 36 years Jimbo B wants to remove it from their resume. I see no reason to not make a mention of it. It is JimboB that is making it so important, by insisting on deleting it and being so relentless about it. Over 8 years he has kept on doing it. Jimbo B says he is a former journalist but he does not seem to respect other journalists around the world and current journalists in Brazil. I opened this case in good faith, but jimboB seems to want to continue this discussion into oblivion.Mortyman (talk)02:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I commented under your latest comment on the Reliable Sources thread exposing my case to the other editors. No one cared to answer but Mortyman himself.

I think a good compromise could be to simply not publish anything regarding audience numbers for that edition of Rock in Rio in the article - not his version, not my version. After all, there is no such information regarding the other editions.

These numbers aren't strictly necessary. The only reason I have insisted on them being correct is that, through the years, Mortyman keeps editing the article and pushing his relentless A-ha promotion. If there will be numbers, then it is important to me that they are correct, former journalist that I am, Rio native that I am, Rock in Rio follower that I am.

Honestly, I'm confused as where to take this. I guess I don't navigate the multiple forums of Wikipedia well, nor do I know how to differentiate one from the other. I'm tired and I'm lost. I just don't want misinformation to prevail.JimboB (talk)01:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I am about to close this discussion, and I will close it as failed, because it ended in back-and-forth discussion that was not permitted. If either of you also want aRequest for Comments, you can request one, and I will compose a neutrally worded RFC. This will not change the fact that I will be closing the DRN as failed. Either of you may file a report atWP:ANI, but, as usual, I will recommend readingthe boomerang essay first.Robert McClenon (talk)21:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry. I guess I got caught up in the heath of the moment. It has unfortunetly become a very heated debate that has been going on for over 8 years. I agree to failed. It is clear that there was no chance for an end to this disagreement. I sincerely thank you for your time and effort Robert.Mortyman (talk)22:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• David Johnston (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Miesianiacal (talk ·contribs)
• ScienceMan123 (talk ·contribs)
• Darryl Kerrigan (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is over where to draw the line on adding content regarding the BLP subject's connections to China within the context of the subject presently being much in the national news as a consequence of his appointment as a rapporteur on Chinese interference in Canadian elections.

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

• Talk:David Johnston#Removal of content relating to appointment as Special Rapporteur
• Talk:David Johnston#Daughters' university educations
• Talk:David Johnston#Latest May 2023 edit war

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The dispute is not attracting any input other than from the aforementioned three editors. Any added voice to help find a compromise or some other resolution would be beneficial at this point.

As I see it, this dispute centers around the following questions:

1. Should Johston's notable daughter be linked from the "children" entry in his info box?
2. Is it relevant to include mention of David Johnston's family ski trips with the Trudeau family?
3. Should Johnston's comments on his relationship with China be included in the article?
4. Should mention of Johnston's daughters' attendance at Chinese universities be included in the article?

I would answer yes to all of the above. For the first, because it is standard practice, and for the others, because these topics have become a central focus of a Canadian political scandal.

For example, the following articles on David Johnston mention his family's ski trips with the Trudeau family:

^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]}

ThanksMiesianiacal. It is unfortunate that these issues haven't been worked out on the talk page, but in the circumstances this is a positive step. The disputes seem to be about inclusion of details about Johnston's daughters (and their education in Chinese universities) and Johnston's links to China. This is all happening in the backdrop ofa Chinese election interference scandal in Canada. I think it is appropriate to note some of the pretty intense criticism that Johnston has faced since his appointment to investigate, and since he released his first report, but some of the edits seem to have gone too far. I expect this content should be dealt with more in the "scandal" article, and less (but somewhat) in his main article. Worth noting last week there was substantial criticism from journalist, politicians, academics including[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] etc. All of that said, I think this can be summarized briefly in his article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)21:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

To expand slightly on the summary above, there are, I think, three sub-disputes within the larger one about the line between encyclopedic and biased, namely:

1. Is where Johnston's daughters attended university relevant to Johnston and, if so, should only one location be mentioned?
2. Is detail about the resort where Johnston went skiing near his cottage relevant to Johnston? And
3. Are Johnston's visits to other universities while he was Principal and Vice-Chancellor of a university relevant to Johnston and, if so, should only visits to Chinese universties be mentioned and are extensive quotes from his speeches at Chinese universities necessary? --₪MIESIANIACAL21:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Please readthe usual rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Do the editors agree to moderated discussion and to accept the ground rules? Please make a brief statement as to whether you agree to moderated discussion. If so, you may also make a brief statement as to what article content you want to change, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Be civil and concise.Robert McClenon (talk)20:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy to contribute to this process. I think for the process to be successful, all editors involved will need to participate includingScienceMan123.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)02:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm up for moderated discussion. (T'was I who requested it.) My main concern about the article, at present, is that it places very specific emphasis on Johnston's past associations with Chinese institutions, to the near-exclusion of all others; through his academic and viceregal careers, he formed connections with institutions in many countries. My concern about the article, in future, is that more mentions of China will make the imbalance even worse. There is already mention in the article of Johnston's appointment as rapporteur on Chinese interference in Canadian elections being criticized because of his past associations with China, which is expanded on in the article on the allegations of interference. --₪MIESIANIACAL18:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy to participate. I believe that due to extensive media coverage of Johnston's alleged conflicts of interest with respect to both China and the Trudeau family, including coverage of the specific points being debated in this dispute, the factual basis for these allegations must be included in his biography. This would necessarily result in greater emphasis on his associations with Chinese institutions than his associations with institutions of other countries, since his associations with non-Chinese institutions have not become a central media topic of a Canadian political scandal. (It is worth noting that he does appear to also have had the most extensive associations with Chinese institutions during his time as university president, so these should naturally receive the most coverage, regardless.)ScienceMan123 (talk)01:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

We have agreement tothe rules, and so will begin moderated discussion. I will first remind the editors to be civil and concise, and to comment on content, not contributors. The identification of specific questions has been helpful. I will list the specific questions that have been raised.

1. Should Johston's notable daughter be linked from the "children" entry in his info box?
2. Is it relevant to include mention of David Johnston's family ski trips with the Trudeau family?
3. Should Johnston's comments on his relationship with China be included in the article?
4. Should mention of Johnston's daughters' attendance at Chinese universities be included in the article?
5. Is where Johnston's daughters attended university relevant to Johnston and, if so, should only one location be mentioned?
6. Is detail about the resort where Johnston went skiing near his cottage relevant to Johnston?
7. Are Johnston's visits to other universities while he was Principal and Vice-Chancellor of a university relevant to Johnston and, if so, should only visits to Chinese universties be mentioned and are extensive quotes from his speeches at Chinese universities necessary?

Will each editor please answer Yes or No to each question? We do not need the reasons for the answers at this time. We will get to that later.Robert McClenon (talk)00:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Are there any other issues?Robert McClenon (talk)00:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for summarizing the questions that have been raised. My answers are "yes" to questions 1-5, and "no" to question 6.

For question 7 clause 1, "Are Johnston's visits to other universities while he was Principal and Vice-Chancellor of a university relevant to Johnston," my answer is that "it depends on the visit and context".

For question 7 clause 2, "should only visits to Chinese universties be mentioned," my answer is "no".

For question 7 clause 3 , "are extensive quotes from his speeches at Chinese universities necessary?" my answer is "no". But just because something is not necessary to include does not mean that it is necessary to remove.ScienceMan123 (talk)01:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I will also mention that since @Miesianiacalhas been contacting administrators for assistance regarding my alleged sockpuppetry, while I in turn suspect that said user is a staffer at Rideau Hall (our governor general's office) with an undisclosed conflict of interest, perhaps we might be able to include an admin examination of both of our IP records as part of this dispute resolution?ScienceMan123 (talk)01:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The Amazing Race 31 (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• TheNewLayoutReallySucks (talk ·contribs)
• Bgsu98 (talk ·contribs)
• Sportsfan 1234 (talk ·contribs)
• Masem (talk ·contribs)
• 96.48.239.44 (talk ·contribs)
• Xoruz (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

Context: The Amazing Race is a competition that involves traveling through multiple countries during each show, and as travel is the main scope of the competition, the relevant Wikipedia pages quite often cover country visits that are notable, and have historically indicated when a country is visited for the first time. Example, Monaco had never been visited in the history of the show until season 26, so on "The Amazing Race 26" we indicate a "first-time visit to Monaco". It is also important to note that The Amazing Race is a franchise and international versions exist.FACT: In 2015, "The Amazing Race Vietnam 2015" was the first time The Amazing Race ever visited the country of Laos.FACT: In 2019, "The Amazing Race 31" made a second visit to Laos. This was the first time the ORIGINAL American version of the show visited the country. It was also the first time any Amazing Race had visited Uganda.Problem: On TAR31's Production section, it identifies this season as visiting Laos for the first time, which is a FALSE statement. Multiple users have attempted to reword the sentence to make it factually accurate, but other users continue to revert these changes back to the FALSE statement. It used to say "The Race traveled [...] including first time visits to Laos and Uganda," which is incorrect as TAR Vietnam 2015 is a "Race" that went to Laos previously. It now says "The Amazing Race 31 traveled [...] including first time visits to Laos and Uganda," which is still ambiguous and technically false information. Attempts to add additional qualifiers such as "Laos was previously on TARV" or "first-time visit for the American version" are consistently removed citing WP:SYNTH, which makes no sense. I don't care how the statement is adjusted one way or another, or if it's removed entirely, but I'm taking a stand against leaving FALSE information on the page. Please come up with a solution besides constantly reverting and telling us to sit down and shut up.

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

Talk:The_Amazing_Race_31#Amazing_Race_Vietnam

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Find a way to change the statement so that it specifies that this is not the first time EVER that Laos was visited, using whatever language is necessary, instead of just the FALSE statement of "first-time visit to Laos". Or remove it entirely, though this would facilitate removing similar information on the other season pages, and I feel like if I just went ahead and did that I would get yelled at.

I was fine with your edit and only slightly tweaked the wording:The Amazing Race 31 traveled over 25,000 miles across four continents and ten countries, including first-time visits toUganda andLaos, although Laos had previously been visited onThe Amazing Race Vietnam. I didn’t see a problem with it, although another user deleted it altogether.Bgsu98(Talk)02:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Chrisdevelop (talk ·contribs)
• koavf (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

TheUser:koavf has deleted an Awards table, citingWP:V,WP:OR, andWP:BLP and has also removed the subject from the BAFTA awards Category. I have disputed these deletions on the article's Talk page. I do not agree with the assertions of the other user for reasons outlined in the revert notices and on the article's Talk page. Moreover, I have suggested that if there are individual items warranting attention such as the requirement for a citation, that^{[citation needed]} is preferable to deletion of a contribution, especially a table which can take hours to create. The responses I find acrimonious, and for my part, I prefer to fix issues myself than to flag them for others to fix. With such an imprecise intervention by this editor, it believe it would be better for them to either fix the issues themselves, and submit for review, or to be specific if they do not feel they have the knowledge in the areas concerned.

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

Talk:The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like the Awards table to be reinstated, and if there are individual items on this list that are likely to be challenged under^{[citation needed]} rules, that they be individually flagged, rather than the entire table taken down. The editor concerned appears not to have followed through the linked to articles, and the citations on the respective pages. Everywhere I have so far checked leads to a reliable source.

This article had unsourced information, including claims about living persons. PerWP:V,WP:OR, andWP:BLP, I removed the unsourced claims. All content on Wikipedia that is not common knowledge needs a citation, either in the text or in the form of an inline citation. Additionally, Wikipedia cannot cite itself, so just linking to another article that itself has sources is not sufficient. I don't know what about anything I just wrote is controversial, nor do I know why anyone wants to add unsourced information to the encyclopedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯08:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note:The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page.Robert McClenon (talk)14:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The other editor has nevertheless already responded here, and the dispute is posted on the article’s Talk page. Can you please explain the policy under which duplication on the other editor’s Talk page is now still required ?Chrisdevelop (talk)21:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Please readthe usual rules. It appears that the main issue is whether to include an Awards table. Are there any other article content issues? Do the editors want to take part in moderated discussion subject to the rules?Robert McClenon (talk)20:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The dispute is not about having a table listing awards. The dispute is about having information that is unsourced (in an article about living persons). I am happy to discuss whatever. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯21:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about unsourced information should be flagged as such, e.g.^{[citation needed]}, since it isn't possible to add citations to a table if the table has been removed from the article, as happened here. Tables are particularly arduous to create, and to delete one is overkill that undoes a great deal of work by other editors, and should not be the first course of action if other options are available, such as a discussion on the article's Talk Page. It is neither necessary nor desirable to provide a citation for every single contribution, unless it is likely to be challenged. As such, the Awards table has been up for a very long time and has hitherto been unchallenged. A cluster of redundant citations impedes readability and adds superfluous bulk to the article. Priscilla is highly notable, as are the awards the film won, nearly all linked through to other articles that provide corroboration from reliable sources. Outside of Wikipedia, readers can easily verify the contributions, and there are no potentially defamatory claims about living persons in the table that I can find. I have gone through all the awards, and they're all verifiable in Wikipedia's existing citations, or easy to find.Chrisdevelop (talk)23:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you wrote this: it's not in reference to what Robert wrote above and doesn't answer his questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Please readthe usual rules again. I usually ask editors to read the rules again. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator and the community.User:Chrisdevelop has not answered whether they will engage in moderated discussion subject tothe rules.Robert McClenon (talk)02:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I now infer that the issue is that there was a table of awards, and one editor removed it because it was unsourced, and the other editor wants it restored. Is that correct? Can it be restored, with sources? Is there an issue about the removal of a table because it did not have sources? Are there any other issues?Robert McClenon (talk)02:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"I now infer that the issue is that there was a table of awards, and one editor removed it because it was unsourced, and the other editor wants it restored. Is that correct?" Yes. "Can it be restored, with sources?" Please. "Is there an issue about the removal of a table because it did not have sources?" Yes. "Are there any other issues?" No. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯03:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Because I opened this disupute requesting intervention by moderators, I assumed it was obvious I agreed to intervention by moderators, but to remove all doubt, I would like to place on record that I agree to it.

The Awards table (originally titled ‘Accolades’, before becoming a subtitle) first appeared in theRevision as of 08:45, 8 April 2016 and in the 7 years that have elapsed since, this table has been updated with numerous edits. According to the Page Information, at the time of posting this, there have been 25661 page views of the article in the past 30 days. Rounding down to 25,000 as a mean monthly access rate from the time the table went up, this article has been viewed roughly 2 million times by members of the public, any one of whom can sign in as editor and either challenge the Awards table, edit it, or flag issues, such as by^{[citation needed]}. Yet this has never happened until the day thatUser:koavf saw fit to delete the table entirely without giving other editors a chance to provide citations for the contributions he was disputing, or being specific about which cells on the table he considered fell foul of the three Wikipedia policies he adduced. Meanwhile, I have notified the originating editor (IP address only ID provided) who contributed the table that this attempt was made to remove it.

Under WikipediaWP:CITE policy, citations should be provided where a contribution is likely to be challenged. For example, a claim that ‘water is found in large quantities on asteroids’ is not common knowledge and would require verification from a reliable source, whereas ‘water is usually used for washing’ would not likely be challenged. Surviving 7 years is a decent track record for this Awards table. Surely, after 2 million views, if a challenge was likely, especially one so serious that it warranted summary excisement of the entire Awards table without discussion, it would have occurred by now?

In the article’s Talk page discussion, Koavf stated that he deleted the Awards table ‘because it had no sources’, and that it violated the following policies:

WP:V policy, which states that ‘verifiability’ means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.

WP:OR which is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

WP:BLP policy, which requires that contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately.

Nearly all the entries on the Awards table are links to other Wikipedia articles, which means they’re notable enough to have an article. This is not recursively “using Wikipedia to prove Wikipedia” as asserted by Koavf, it is providing a directory to articles that provide details about the awards cited. If you drill down, you will soon enough get to citations if you’re concerned about verifiability of claims. To copy all 72 citations back so they appear in the source table is going to result in what will look like citation spam.

Let’s walk through just three of these:

• The first entry in the Awards table isAACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies. In this section there is a table wherein there is not a single citation provided, moreover, there are living persons listed. Why has Koavf not deleted this table on the same grounds he gave for removing the Awards table in the Priscilla article? All but 6 of cells on this table drill down to another article.
• The next entry isAACTA_Award_for_Best_Film. From 1976 to 2023 there is not a single citation provided, moreover, there are living persons listed, many either with no article, or redlinked. Why has Koavf likewise not deleted this table on the same grounds he gave for removing the Awards table in the Priscilla article?
• Then we haveAACTA Award for Best Direction, and again zero citations, and there are ‘living persons’ cited in almost every cell.

I invite you to walk through the links in every other cell, and confirm the same applies in most of the tables that show up. Again, why has Koavf not deleted all those tables too? Like the Awards table, they are directories to other articles, so none of them have citations, while all refer to living persons. So, what are his reasons for honing in just on the Priscilla Awards table? Had it not been for my having been alerted to the deletion of the Awards table, aside from mention of its Oscar win in the Lede, the film would have gone from having 11 wins to having zero wins and zero nominations, according to this article, and some hapless editor would be sure to create anew an Awards table.

Koavf states that the Awards makes “claims about living persons” without detailing what those claims are, other than on the Talk page, where he he asks, “why are you adding claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations?” However, the Awards table he deleted does not state that any person, living or otherwise, “lost awards”; the table itemises only those who won them, or were nominated for them. If a reader wants to find out more, all they have to do is click any of the links in the table.

Readers can with minimal difficulty verify that the cells in the Awards table come from a reliable source, by following the links through to their targets. It is not true to assert via adducing ofWP:OR that no published sources exist for Priscilla, one of the most notable in cinematic history, if dozens of extensively documented awards, huge box office, spin-off musicals and live shows, alongside the 2 million Wikipedia views this article has enjoyed over the past 7 years are anything to go by. There is nothing ‘contentious’ I can see concerning the nominated living persons in this Awards table, but if there is, then Koavf needs to explain what that is. In short, he needs to give a blow by blow justification for deleting this table; alternatively he should flag it, or fix it. Otherwise, I view his summary deletion of the Awards table as tantamount to vandalism.

I also feel it incumbent to comment on the patronising and paternalistic righteousness of tone at times evinced by Koavf in his dialogue with me on the edit notes, the Talk page and here, which I believe is in contravention ofAssume good faith.Chrisdevelop (talk)22:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I repeated my question of whether the filing party agreed to moderated discussion because I was also asking whether they agreed tothe rules that I provided. Please readthe rules a third time, so that I can restate a few points. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements often have the purpose of making the poster feel better, but often do not convey information to the other parties.User:Chrisdevelop – Your post is too long.

Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so we talk about the article. Changing the behavior of editors is not in the scope of this noticeboard.

It seems that there is one issue, the removal of the table of awards, which was done because it was unsourced. We have at least two ways to go forward on the issue. First, we can discuss whether the removal was correct or incorrect. The purpose of such discussion will be to decide whether to restore the table in its previous unsourced form. Second, we can discuss the addition of sources to the table. If we add sources to the table, there will be no need to discuss whether to restore it without sources. If the table linked to other Wikipedia articles that have sources, we can simply copy those sources.

Does anyone have a brief plan to propose about the addition of sources to the table?Robert McClenon (talk)22:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything else concise to say or ask?Robert McClenon (talk)22:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

There were three reasons adduced for summary deletion without discussion, as itemised in my previous statement, Original Research, Verifiability and Biography of Living Persons.

If this table did not link to corroborative articles that verify the awards, then I would have agreed it needed citations. However, this table is a directory; it is not a repository of information about the awards. If by definition a table ‘without sources’ has to be deleted, then all the tables it links to should be deleted too, as per my previous statement, since none of them have citations either, and all nominate ‘living persons’. Why are these linked-to tables that document the awards still allowed to remain there, e.g.this table, if the identical reasons for deleting this Awards table are upheld? I am confident as I can be that if I were to delete all the directory tables linked to from the article, I would be nominated for vandalism. This hitherto unchallenged Awards table of seven years’ standing and roughly 2 million views is simply a directory to other articles that corroborate the wins/nominations, and therefore it does not need to be cluttered with citations when this information is present and verifiable in the linked articles. I will also wager that if an editor with time on their hands adds citations for every name and every award, when these are already linked to in the encyclopedia, they will almost certainly be reverted as redundant.Chrisdevelop (talk)23:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"If the table linked to other Wikipedia articles that have sources, we can simply copy those sources." Agreed. It's a trivial problem to solve if someone wants to take it up. I personally don't and according toWP:V (emphasis in the original, footnotes turned into brackets): All content must be verifiable.The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing aninline citation to a reliable source that directly supports [A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is presentexplicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation ofWikipedia:No original research. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, seeWikipedia:Citing sources,Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § Citations, etc.] the contribution.[Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim;undue emphasis;unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieveconsensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.] This material should not be added back without citations since it has been removed, yet, here we are.

"Does anyone have a brief plan to propose about the addition of sources to the table?" I did not intend to fix the problem personally, only diagnose it (i.e., I just removed the unsourced claims,I was not going to bother trying to prove or disprove another person's claims).

"Does anyone have anything else concise to say or ask?" I just hope that the conversation is fruitful and stays on topic. If anyone else can please tell me where I am wrong, let me know: I believe that content on Wikipedia needs to have sources, and there is a particularly high burden of proof and standard of evidence for articles that make claims about living persons. What am I missing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯00:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It appears that there is a policy question. The question is whether a table is consistent withthe verifiability policy if it consists of links to other Wikipedia articles and does not have its own references because it relies on the ability of the reader to click through the linked articles that do have references. It appears that the two editors disagree over that point of that policy, so that one editor said that the table was compliant because it linked to other articles that were references, and the other editor removed the table because it did not cite sources. Is that correct? If so, I will ask atVillage Pump whether the verifiability policy requires references in the table itself, Do the editors agree to rely on guidance from other experienced editors on a policy question?Robert McClenon (talk)15:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that's correct and I would be interested in clarification, as I solicited it. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you,Robert McClenon for your ongoing interest in resolving this dispute. Your summation is correct as far as it goes and I support your proposed involvement ofVillage Pump, however there remains the issue of theWP:BLP policy violation adduced by the deleting editor, in respect of which he asked “why are you adding claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations?” Out of the three Wikipedia policy violations adduced by the editor, onlyWP:BLP infraction mandates summary removal of a contribution 'without discussion'. BothWP:OR andWP:V, however, require only that the violation be flagged, since it would be clearly impossible for another editor to fix a problem, if the contribution manifesting the problem had been deleted, as has happened here. I cannot see where in the table there was any claim about a living person losing awards, and so this needs to be resolved before we can address the sources question. Otherwise the table will only be deleted again, if not by one of those present, then by another editor further down the track.

Regarding the sources question, underWP:V, a citation is required for any contribution that is "likely to be challenged". Common sense tells me that if a contribution was likely to be challenged, it would have been challenged a lot sooner than after 7 years and 2 million views, as for this table.Burden of proof has thereby already implicitly been satisfied by the table's longevity, thus a new burden of proof is incumbent upon whoever deletes it, viz. proof of policy violations. Moreover, if the action to delete any directory table that has no inline citations is upheld, then this will create a precedent that will impact not only every article linked to from this Awards table but practically every directory table on Wikipedia. As an example,AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies would need to be deleted under such an interpretation of the policy, because as a directory table, it hasn't got a single inline citation, since every cell drills down to another article where verification can be found. If on the other hand, it is flagged and time allowed for it to remain until inline citations can be added by drilling down and retrieving them and then copying back to the source table, then this will add roughly 100 citations to theAACTA Awards article, just on account of this table, taking the count from 64 that are already there, to 164 as a result of citation bloat. Some of these would also need to be copied back to the Priscilla Awards table. I cannot see how this article is improved by either deleting its Awards table so no-one can see it, thus no-one can improve it, or peppering the table with citations when this information is already present in the linked to articles.Chrisdevelop (talk)01:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I have asked for comments atVillage Pump, and I have received comments, including a pointer to a recently archived discussion, but the comments are inconclusive. I see four possible ways to resolve this dispute:

• 1.User:Koavf can agree to restore the table, on the grounds that it is not likely to be challenged, because it was not challenged for seven years until they removed it.
• 2.User:Chrisdevelop can agree to the removal of the table. This seems undesirable, because the table contains useful information, but it is one way to resolve the content dispute.
• 3. An editor can provide sources and restore the table. This will result in a large number of notes being added to the article. Articles that have tables often have large numbers of supporting notes. This is the most desirable resolution, but it requires work by a volunteer editor. Merely agreeing that sources should be added to the table is not a resolution because it makes the sourcing of the tableSomeone else's problem, which, asDoug Adams explains, is a method ofcloaking the table, making it almost invisible, and it will be invisible until it is added to the article.
• 4. An RFC can be used to choose between option 1 and option 2. If an editor provides sources for the table, this stops the RFC.

Robert McClenon (talk)18:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Does either editor want to agree to the other editor's solution? If not, does either editor have an option 5? If not, the editors should be ready to submit the issue to an RFC.

Be civil and concise. Many of the statements have been too long. Overly long statements make the editor feel better, but do not persuade the community better than concise statements.Robert McClenon (talk)18:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"Does either editor want to agree to the other editor's solution?" I do not agree with solution 1, as I do not agree with inserting unsourced information into Wikipedia.

"If not, does either editor have an option 5?" I do not see another option--good summary, Robert.

"If not, the editors should be ready to submit the issue to an RFC." I am willing to have this go to an RfC.

Thanks for this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯20:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The draft RFC is available for review atTalk:The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert/RFC One. I will consider proposed changes to the wording of the RFC before I move it to the article talk page. When it is moved to the article talk page, I will insert the{{RFC}} template which will activate it. Do not put your statements in the draft RFC at this time. It isn't the real thing yet, or, rather, it isn't in the real place yet. Any comments about the wording of the RFC should be made before I activate it.Robert McClenon (talk)21:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for setting up this RFC, however before making it live, the question I asked several times remains unanswered, concerning the deleting editor's question: “Why are you adding claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations?” Out of the three Wikipedia policy violations adduced by the editor (WP:V,WP:OR, andWP:BLP), onlyWP:BLP warrants deletion without discussion, otherwise if the table is disappeared from view, future editors will be unlikely to add inline citations, perhaps being unaware it ever existed. If the deleting editor can demonstrate I added claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations, then I will agree to the removal of such claims, but not to the deletion of the table. If the deleting editor can likewise show which contributions in the table haveno reliable, published sources or that arelikely to be challenged out of the blue, and why, after remaining unchallenged for 7 years and 2 million views, then he can add citations himself, rather than making thissomeone else's problem. The proper way to flag a need for inline citations is by^{[citation needed]}, not arbitrary deletion of the entire Awards table. This Awards table is not plain, unverified black text, it links to articles that provide sources. May I suggest therefore that the RFC statement needs fleshing out as to the pros and cons, since this will act as a precedent impacting all the linked-to tables and other directory tables that do not have inline citations either, such as the one cited above.AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies is but one of perhaps thousands more such tables that link to articles containing requisite verifiable sources, but do not themselves include inline citations either, yet which the deleting editor has left intact for as yet undisclosed reasons. Just as clicking a link to another article exits the article, an inline citation sends the reader elsewhere for verification; a link to another article that contains the verification is sufficient to upholdverifiability, otherwise a hapless volunteer will need to add 100 or so citations forAACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies. If the decision to delete the Priscilla Awards table is upheld, thenAACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies has to be deleted too, presumably by Koavf who can defend his action on its Talk page, if someone notices it's disappeared. I view deleting without discussion a table that has stood unchallenged for 7 years with 2 million views asdeletionism tantamount tovandalism. For the record, I ask that my responses be assessed on merits of my argument, rather than on the number of words needed; they're not to make me "feel better".Chrisdevelop (talk)15:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I have copied the RFC on the article talk page, and in the near future a bot will invite random people to participate in it.User:Chrisdevelop says that the RFC needs fleshing out as to the pros and the cons. I agree that will be desirable, but I don't think that requires delaying the launch of the RFC (so I have launched it). The arguments for and against can be entered in the Discussion section; that is what it is for. The two principal editors are capable of making the statements for and against. I would suggest that the statement in favor of keeping the table be less than 450 words. Be civil and concise.Robert McClenon (talk)15:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The policies that are involved in this dispute areverifiability andbiographies of living persons. I don't see an issue oforiginal research.

Deletion of material due to a dispute oververifiability isnot vandalism.

I will leave this case open for a day or two for comments by the principals, and will then close it as being resolved by the RFC. However, during that time, comments by the principals will be seen by more editors if they are made in the Discussion section of the RFC on the article talk page.Robert McClenon (talk)15:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for setting this up!Chrisdevelop (talk)18:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Iran and the Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Adoring nanny (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

To whom it may concerns,

According to Act 68/262 and resolution 23 Feb 2023 UN general assembly Iran has voted neutral against the Russian invasion to Ukraine along with 31 other sovereign nations, this content is a malevolent example of the ignorance of a sovereign country`s neutral state and mentions Iran for leading an invasion to Ukraine, I request the removal of the content which is based on false news and falsification of the history of the conflicts between Iran and Ukraine, Iran has not invaded Ukraine and whether the weapons made by Iran has been used deliberately or un-deliberately in Ukraine by conflicting parties does not mean an act of war on a separate state unless Wikipedia became a tribune for propaganda agencies to make false contents and abusing high impact on Wikipedia. Additionally there has been reports:https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iranian-weapons-ukraine-russia-invasion-putin-1234698738/that Ukraine acquired and used Iranian made weapons against Russia probably by smuglers or the weapons which were seized by piracy. I request removal of the content which is based on false and misleading information.

RegardsAmidav

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The title resembles an act of war between two neighboring countries with an emphasis on Iran's invasion of Ukraine. This is clearly political propaganda by hostile parties. I request a fair judgment.

Adoring nanny and other very fast users protected and removed the additional warnings and changes that I made to the articles about their fallacy calling it vandalism without referring to the discussion board to talk about the issue and then increased the protection of their content to mute opposing parties. You may find the same pattern in any content regarding Iran's role in the Ukraine conflict by trying to make a high impact on history and to sabotage Wikipedia which tends to be a neutral source of information and not a fake news website.— Precedingunsigned comment added by77.65.91.16 (talk)16:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• TylerBurden (talk ·contribs)
• Theonewithreason (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute on link tocrime in Serbia under ″law and criminal justice″ section. Discussion quickly got stuck, so RfC was started which has not brought in much input. Only two additonal editors have participated, one after I raised the topic on Wikiproject countries, and one from AN/I in a report created due to the behavour during the dispute.

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

Talk:Serbia

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

More input from uninvolved editors looking objectively at the RfC would be the best way forward in the dispute.

• Volunteer Note - This appears to be a request for assistance in publicizing an RFC. That isn't the usual purpose of DRN, but it is a reasonable request. Is the filing editor asking for assistance in publicizing the RFC?Robert McClenon (talk)03:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• LGBT rights in Ukraine (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Pbritti (talk ·contribs)
• Wpscatter (talk ·contribs)
• Ponyo (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

A user added a summary of top 5 takeaways that were non-biased, concise, to the point and professional to the top of the lead section. As described in the talk page, I suggested a history of the ensuing edit war where I intervened to preserve the quality and reliability of the summary. The talk page was used to ask a group of content reverters what was wrong with the proposed content and an extensive effort was made to address any concerns. The repeated reverts seem to be based in bias of the supported and referenced content. I think they don't want it to be true, and want to obscure or obfuscate the current situation of LGTB community in Ukraine.

First, I ask that you intervene in the name of enhancing readability for casual readers consistent with the summary style.

Secondly, I ask that you intervene in the interest of honesty and truthfulness. The source referenced in an LGTB watchdog that focuses on Europe. I believe it is a highly reputable reference which seems to be disputed for biased reasons.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_rights_in_UkraineTopic: Summary Style - Edit War Resolution Discussion

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Perhaps an independent conversation with the three users involved after doing a review of the topic.

A suggestion of how the content might be included at the top of the lead section if bullet points under the heading is not the right method to quickly and concisely give the causal reader the information they seek.

IP arbitrarily selectedsome facts, baselessly claimed these were the most essential points regarding LGBT rights in Ukraine, retroactively sourced these claims (ignoring the other material in that source), and edit-warred. These are not the most salient points regarding LGBT rights in Ukraine according to any reliable sources, instead reflecting prohibited original research and recentism. Several spurious claims of vandalism and bias suggests this IP may have an alternative objective here. ~Pbritti (talk)00:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[Corrected spelling error 02:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)]

Answer Zeroth comment: No, I request close. ~Pbritti (talk)00:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors of this filing on their user talk pages.Robert McClenon (talk)04:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

DoesUser:Pbritti want to engage in moderated discussion with the unregistered editor? If so, please readthe usual rules and indicate that you agree to moderated discussion, and to the rules. Otherwise I will close the case.Robert McClenon (talk)00:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• History of Transylvania (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• OrionNimrod (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement on the information to be included from the cited source:https://www.academia.edu/1825911/Nobility_land_and_service_in_medieval_Hungarypages 91 to 93. OrionNimrod considers current version to be the ok, myself I think it should also include the following information from the text:"Linguistic evidence suggests a Romanian presence in Hunyad county from at least the eleventh century""It could, nevertheless, also be taken to indicate the new political importance attaching to the Romanian chieftains of Transylvania and the Lower Danube which made their presence for the first time worthy of record."and the "largely" from the phrase:"The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century"

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

Talk:History of Transylvania#Martyn Rady, academic British source

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide with a uninvolved opinion on the text content and information suitable for the page in order to have a good use of the source.

I have no dispute regarding to the mentioned things, in talk page explained everything, morover I posted even myself 2 hours earlier than the opening of this noticeboard report 1 content from above what is allegedly disputed by me...

• Volunteer Note - It appears that there isn't a content dispute. If so, I will close this case. If there is a content dispute, please state briefly what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave unchanged.Robert McClenon (talk)19:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The situation seems to have stabilised. Thank you, @Robert McClenon for taking the time to look at this.Aristeus01 (talk)22:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Kleuske (talk ·contribs)
• 181.167.210.101 (talk ·contribs)
• Samson1357924 (talk ·contribs)
• 188.243.182.16 (talk ·contribs)
• Revwescol (talk ·contribs)
• 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk ·contribs)
• Ricky81682 (talk ·contribs)
• DanielSururuHK (talk ·contribs)
• Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk ·contribs)
• 2001:EE0:478D:F970:71D7:9220:B3F1:80BB (talk ·contribs)
• Woodroar (talk ·contribs)
• 84.65.105.173 (talk ·contribs)
• 2003:D4:6F38:C090:7701:8776:C467:EA87 (talk ·contribs)
• 331dot (talk ·contribs)
• JPxG (talk ·contribs)
• Edwin Herdman (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

On 18 November 2022, Kleuske removed the product list tables from the Exmor article, citingWP:NOTCATALOG as the reason for removal. This has sparked a massive controversy, which is still ongoing to this day, involving dozens of editors on both sides of the dispute, both on the article as well as many more on its talk page. There are at least 18 editors on the talk page who have expressed their opposition of the removal and want the list tables restored.

An RfC was started on the talk page on 26 December 2022, which has been concluded to be in favour of the removal. However, the RfC has not resolved the dispute, with numerous further requests to restore the lists on the talk page from various editors since then, as well as further attempts by various editors to restore the list on the article as recent as May 2023.

The page has been semi-protected four times because of the content dispute, with the current protection lasting until May 2024. I have no doubt that as long as this dispute remains not properly resolved, there will be further attempts to restore the list tables on the article as soon as the current protection expires.

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

• Talk:Exmor#Product catalog.
• Talk:Exmor#😟
• Talk:Exmor#Reporting for vandalism
• Talk:Exmor#Request for comment on list of sensor models (RfC)
• Talk:Exmor#Thanks for killing this good page
• Talk:Exmor#Request for information
• Talk:Exmor#Removal of the Product Catalogue.
• Talk:Exmor#Reinstate list into a separate list page
• Talk:Exmor#Where is the product list?
• Talk:Exmor#Consensus?
• Talk:Exmor#Be consistent and delete Samsung's Isocell sensor list too

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe that there is a strong consensus here to restore at least a list of some sort on the Exmor article. Although it may be in violation of Wikipedia's content policies such as WP:NOTCATALOG, I believe that the product lists were highly useful to many readers of the article, which is reflected in the messages from various users on the talk page. My opinion is that a smaller list should be created which covers significant/"referencable" products only.

As I stated on the talk-page, articles are not product catalogs. The amount of technical detail on obscure sensors was excessive (144k) and a clear violation ofWP:NOTCATALOG and lendsWP:UNDUE weight to above mentioned sensors to the detriment of the actual encyclopedic article. I stand with those statements. I am not opposed to an overview of the product line, but an encyclopedic article is not a datasheet. All the interesting information is still accessible in the page history and should be hosted by Sony, not Wikipedia.Kleuske (talk)13:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

As I asked on the talk page, for those who scream it is useful, they can provide a link to a static page of the list on their off-wiki place. Else, for all the arguments that this is somehow useful, no one has presented a single source that discusses this 'list'. The fact that it is literally the exact same static list being inserted again and again tells me no one is actually interested in this as a wiki. You would assume some attempt at a moderate ground rather than these IP users and new accounts coming to revert back to a single giant list. The only point they do have is there are a number of similar listcrafts out there but this one has been the most recently fought. --Ricky81682 (talk)06:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that the bigger question and goal is to figure out how to preserve access to the information - I did see a variety of suggestions, some of which didn't pan out, so perhaps Wikisource and consideringWikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources would be useful. But statements like "those who scream it" and "no one is actually interested in this as a wiki" are confrontational towards people who are not long-time Wikipedia editors - please remember thatWikipedia:Assume good faith applies even if you are dealing with people who you think don't get it. --Edwin Herdman (talk)05:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• It's not controversial that a smaller, better sourced list would be permissible. I've said this more than once on the talk page. I'm not really sure why this case was opened.331dot (talk)11:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that most of the supporters of the list seem to be concerned with whatis "useful" to them personally, and less so with Wikipedia guidelines likeWP:NOTDIRECTORY.331dot (talk)12:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• IAR is not a license to do anything that is desired by persistent users that disagree with a decision.331dot (talk)11:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

What EXMOR article supporters supposed from the speedy deletion of the spun-out independent list was that in fact there would be no accommodation for creating a "smaller, better sourced list." As I just wrote in another comment, there are first-party source problems with the list, and if that is really the problem, then perhaps steering users towards Wikisource would be a better alternative. --Edwin Herdman (talk)05:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi I am the person that wrote from multiple IP's due to forgetting to make account. (88.230.43.132---88.230.44.144) and tried my best to refute every single point in 88.230.43.132. I honestly think the Wikipedia is a whole isn't really dictated by rules but rather common sense.

Point 1 Wikipedia explictly allows this - Ignore All Rules -

Note:Sorry if this looks bit too raw. I don't know much about official editing so please don't wade it off as "wade of text nobody is going to read that" as it happened in talk page.

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules" explictly says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". This rule is over a decade old and the simple fact that how this page was fought all between the world from GMT-12 zones like Australia to the GMT 0 of Europe and Argentina.

Point 2 "Fancruft"

The fancruft is about how fans make excessively detailed lists about TV show characters. This page was edited by lots of people and I honestly don't understand why would anyone decide to fan over only one single companys sensors. Sadly I don't really have computer know how but I wouldn't say anyone would decide to only "fan" over only one company when improving Wikipedia.

The editors who want this list to get removed simply think "This list doesn't help anyone other than small subset of developers" which is horrendous because this benefitted not just some developers who nobody knows how many used but as I told multiple times. Friends and family that I showed this to help what to buy.

Only people "fanning" over this article were the editors putting call to delete on seperate Exmor list within an hour of its posting by RM12

Point 3 Wikipedia expliclty has criteria of putting technology lists and "Catalogue"

From the horses mouth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no":

Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it? If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

Both are fullfilled in article+list of Exmor or used to be before it was chopped off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Listshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contents/Lists

All these pages are listed in official mainpage of list of lists. There are explict tutorials on how to make lists and manuals of stlyes. I am willing to bet this page wasted/spent someone megabytes when all they wanted was lookup two CPU's meanwhile this page is 151k and is "too much" even though it also has details what phone used what.

More so these pages are actual catalogues with Part Numbers and suggested pricing in dollars and Exmor and isocell is none of that besides it's really weird how ISOCELL is biased how it's not removed but Exmor list is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_processors - This page has zero references is probably over megabytes and isn't even split but thanks to community feedback someone is planning to redesign the table. This page was edited over the years and it has less than 50 references

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_processors_(Broadwell-based) - zero references

The other point of this is that while admins that delete this list frequently cite how Wikipedia isn't a webhost are telling people to link to old static page before list was purged. Nobody is going to link to old revision clogging up webs pace in Wikipedia and ironically will be more waste of space

Point 4 Literally everyone in the internet wants this list to be killed.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/camerawiki/discuss/72157721917937671/

It was suggested in Wikipedia that this page was more fitting for camera-wiki multiple times but when I went there nobody was interested and editwar articles like this aren't welcome and I should go make my own website.

The only alternative is said to be "It's Sony's job to have this list" but let's be honest with ourselves. Why would they pan out such simple technical information about their sensors and smartphone companies?

The separate list was shot down in less than a week after getting marked for deletion within less than a hour by one of the admins that were opposed to this list even though seperate lists like that are allowed all the way across the wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Sony_Exmor_image_sensors&action=edit&redlink=1

Point 5 Internet is a plenty allready and whose is it to decide what is too much whetever size or detail?

It has been said multiple times that 151kilobytes of data being "too much". Meanwhile in reality even if someone were to use dialup it would take less than 5 seconds to download. which corresponds to what lag most browsers have loading a page. Wikipedia isn't going to bankrupt overnight because of web traffic of 151k of text while the logo image alone is probably double of that.

It is also said that how it can be done so only the "major" sensors should be included but how are we going to keep a track of that? What if one of the sensors not included in the list gets used in some smartphone? Will it be really worth it to save some pixels on someones screen to making a wikipedia contributor to have a easier to adding what phones used the sensor in "Notes" section?

There are already notability guidelines and "Should there be list" guideline I wrote above that are both checked.

Point 6 admin consensus?

The talk page of Admin kleuske has him saying how he "give no hoot" when asked why he does this and 331dot seems to be "no one is going to read this wall of text" when someone tried a detailed defense .

The RFC seems to be made by admins who simply read FANCRUFT CATALOGUE pages and simply agreed without much thought over "don't edit if there is no benefit / rules for lists" all the while a longtime Wikipedia user was simply left unresponded by the rest in the RFC

The other "catalogue" of ISOCELL sensors is simply left untouched and the person who actually listed type and number of references seems to be never involved here meanwhile the admins that do their best to purge this article talk a lot about "bad references" here don't say anything else and roundabout about their statements here

Point 7 this page is too noteworthy to be simply deleted

As banner stated. This list was used by XDA Developers news and congratulated over how community banded up to make such a useful list .

I am not the only person bothered by this as seen here which disproves "only small developers benefit from this page" claim

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66938457

As said before whose is it to say "Wikipedia isn't some camera buy trivia website"?

Summary

151k isn't all that big in age of 10 Gigabit internet and 5G networks and its negligible on dial up and ever decreasing hosting prices. Literally nobody is benefitting of how "151k of extra useless information should be removed" when there are allready pages full of actual catalogue grade part numbers and MSRP's all while Wikipedia explicitly allows and help making a list like this and has a rule to only edit if it's beneficial .

In the end this senseless drama has beem going on for zero reason and it honestly should stop. Please help people who help their relatives to get phones as opposed to some admins who literally vandalize a page for zero benefit

thanks for reading

Guyfromturkey (talk)04:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I think WP:IAR is probably not a good defense here. And regarding the article size: I would argue, as was advocated in some NVIDIA GPU articles, that if editors have concerns about readability and usability, then we need to investigate edits or dynamic tables to present the information in a more compact fashion. I have summarized what I think, which I think matches up fairly well with your comments here, in my comment @Robert_McClenon below.Edwin Herdman (talk)04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to IAR. I honestly ran out of defenses to say and I just wanted to cite IAR/common sense because to be frank. There isn't much to say when

The Samsung sensor list is kept even though it has same resource issues and there is no reply against that.

The admin that started it all simply says "i don't give a ... what you say i can do whatever i want" when questioned in his own talk page all while citing other stuff exist rule which he/she doesn't enforce for whatever reason.

Other one is "combat ready" or whatever the English word is in his desk or whatever to put deletion process within 15 minutes then gets sepearate list page deleted less than a week in after it's announced in talk page of Exmor all while making different statement's everytime "smaller list is more useful" (Which sounds sensible) after constantly going "Wikipedia isn't for some tech geeks to get sensor trivia go somewhere else"

The mark for deletion discussion has never before part of talk page admins simply copy pasting not catalogue link and only person saying keep not getting discussion response why he is wrong.

I honestly think it's not possible for anyone to actually improve lists (which were collapsible unlike all these car spec cpu spec pages and thus didn't obstruct page at all unlike claimed) that doesn't exist/can't be seen and even if it was tried it would get shot down because it "drowns the article" and "Wikipedia isn't your web host go host it yourself or Sony " mentalityGuyfromturkey (talk)04:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I am prepared to say the same thing here that I say, more or less, every time a discussion of this sort rolls around. Semiconductor technology is an extremely important and broad topic, upon which virtually every edifice of our modern world depends. Not only is it an important topic, it is a very broad one, with a lot of complexity and detail: chips and sensors have a lot of specific properties and attributes, and objectively true ones that can be easily verified to boot. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that tries to present the sum of human knowledge that is notable and can be verified to neutral, reliable sources. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be useful to its readers, and our content policies are written to this end.

What happened here is what happens, more or less, every time a discussion of this sort rolls around: a bunch of Wikipedia readers (in this case almost entirely electrical engineers) are pissed off because a bunch of Wikipedians have reached some consensus to remove a big table with a lot of information in it. I am not sure what benefit we would get from a formally moderated discussion, since everyone is probably just going to say the same thing they said before.jp×g23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no doubt that as long as this dispute remains not properly resolved, there will be further attempts to restore the list tables on the article as soon as the current protection expires.

The filing editor has listed eight other registered editors and six IP addresses. Moderated discussion is very seldom feasible with so many editors. The most effective way to resolve a content dispute with a large number of editors is an RFC. There has already been an RFC. Four months later, with continuing complaints, another RFC may be in order.

Does the filing party want another RFC, possibly publicized better, or can the filing party explain what they want?Robert McClenon (talk)02:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I think a key feature of this debate is that "rough consensus" glosses over the very strong divide. I understand some of the objections from the anti-EXMOR list users, but I do not think they were well-explained to the infrequent editors active before the edit war, or readers who were invested in preserving the list. That was an avoidable mistake in my view. --Edwin Herdman (talk)04:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The filing editor,User:AP 499D25, was asked what some of their statements mean, which appear to say that a few editor will be persistent and will continue to restore the table, regardless of whether editors want it. They were also asked whether they want another RFC. If there is no answer from them, I will close this DRN request and will restate that there was a consensus to remove the table, and therefore not to add it back in.Robert McClenon (talk)00:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello guys.

I admit that I'm a bit unfamiliar with how exactly DR/N and its processes work, that this is the first thread I've created here, and that most of all, I didn't make my intentions very clear (and were a bit different than what I wrote) in the "How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?" statement.

Here's theexact reason I've created this thread, and the intended goal for it:

So between the litany of complaints from dozens of editors regarding the removal, as well as the wall of text of messages from editors who are on the side of "there should be no list" and "there should only be a small list", it was difficult for me to analyse and understand what exactly the consensus was, especially considering that the reverts have still continued recently in May 2023, shortly after the expiration of the third page protection.

On top of that, the reverts in the history of the Exmor article demonstrated that quite a number of the editors who want the product list back, wanted the full original list restored, rather than some small portion of it containing just notable / referencable products only.

The intended outcome for this DR/N thread was to see what exactly to make of these opposing points that have numerous supporters on all sides of the argument, before proceeding to add a list to the article again. There were so many pieces of the puzzle to put together I just didn't know what the consensus really was.

I hope that makes sense now. I am happy to come and clarify further statements if needed.

I had also forgotten that you can create another RfC on the same topic if needed, that it's not really limited to one...

To answer this question:

? That appears to mean: "The editors who want the table will be persistent, and don't want to accept the status quo." What is really meant?

What I meant by it, is that it seemed to me that the dispute was not over, considering that the reverts on the article and further objections to the content removal on the talk page have both continued after the December 2022 RfC and several editors supporting the removal having expressed why so. Once again, with the scale of the dispute being so explosively vast, I could not determine if it was over.

Thanks everyone! And apologies for any time wasted and confusion created. — AP 499D25(talk)03:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to apologize for time wasted - Wikipedia is meant to be collaborative. Thank you for tagging me in. I think your comments reflect that the process of debating and seeking consensus was unnecessarily flawed and even combative at times. I agree with you that this really could have some profound consequences for technology pages, if the rationale used against the EXMOR list really holds generally. --Edwin Herdman (talk)04:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Please readthe usual rules. I am not opening a case, and do not plan to open a case, but it would be a good idea for at least the filing party to read the rules. The rules include being concise, and being specific.

The filing party has submitted a long statement. It doesn't answer either the question that they said they were addressing, or the question that I asked. The question that they said they were addressed is why they requested dispute resolution. I know that some editors are not satisfied with the deletion of the table. That sometimes happens. It is not always possible to satisfy every editor, and it isn't always useful to keep trying to resolve a dispute when a majority of the community have expressed a rough consensus. What is more immediately important is that the filing party hasn't answered my question.

Does the filing party want another RFC, possibly publicized better? If so, we will have another RFC. Otherwise, we will close this case.Robert McClenon (talk)19:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I've not been party to the dispute or the RFC except in a tangential way, but I want to share my observations. I think this has profound potential consequences for bias and the Wikipedia community beyond the EXMOR article that should be discussed in some forum - perhaps the village pump would be an appropriate venue.

User:Edwin Herdman – Maybe you didn't readthe ground rules when you jumped in to this discussion. You are welcome to take part, and I have added you to the list of editors, but you are expected to follow the rules. When I say "Be civil and concise", I don't mean "Be civil", and I don't mean "Be civil or be concise". I don't mean to post 1800 words. When I say not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, that means not to reply to every post. I have read your lengthy statements once, and, because of their length, I am not sure what you are saying. DRN is not a forum to discuss policy, and, about this article, we will not be having moderated discussion, because there already has been an RFC. Either there can be another RFC, or the most recent RFC will stand as the rough consensus of the community.Robert McClenon (talk)16:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There have been suggestions that a shorter list or table might be a good idea. We can consider a shorter table as one of the options if there is another RFC. I have asked one question that has not been answered, which is whether there should be another RFC. If there are any other issues, they can be stated concisely now. Any long comments will be collapsed, and some of the overly long comments that have already been made will be collapsed.

Should there be another RFC?Robert McClenon (talk)16:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I take your point, Robert. I don't know and I'm looking for guidance on whether another RFC would actually be the appropriate venue to tackle this. As I suggested, I think there are some issues outside the scope of just restoring the list or not. --Edwin Herdman (talk)21:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The purpose ofDRN is to resolve content disputes that have not been resolved by normal discussion. There does not appear to have been any discussion of changes to the article except for continuing controversy about whether or not to have the table. If there are issues about article content outside the scope of restoring the table, they should be discussed at the article talk page,Talk:Exmor. If discussion reaches an impasse, a request can be made for moderated discussion atDRN. If there are issues about policy, they can be discussed atVillage pump or another policy forum. If there are issues about editor conduct, they can be addressed atWP:ANI.Robert McClenon (talk)05:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

If there are any questions, I will try to answer them.

Should there be another RFC?Robert McClenon (talk)05:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I have now understood that DR/N isn't the most appropriate option to resolve this content dispute, in its current state.

I am currently not interested in starting another RfC. If I decide that there shall be another RfC, I'll start it myself later anyway.

As for what I exactly wanted to be done, I intended for a product list to be created on the article again –either a list with notable products only,or restoring the original list with all the sensors in it. Whether it's theformer or thelatter that should be done, would be based on the general consensus formed from collecting the various opposing points and their arguments here on this thread, together. — AP 499D25(talk)10:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Genetic studies on Jews (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Andrevan (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

I made an edit to the article: Genetic studies on Jews - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews> back on May 23rd 2023 to reflect the controversy regarding the article. There were some initial issues with vandalism from those removing it but my sources were solid, so it was maintained. I wanted to give more details and flesh the section out more so I made an edit around June 5th and planned on doing the same with the non-religious areas of the same section later in the week, but I again encountered vandalism.

The moderator (User:Andrevan - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrevan>) I received after requesting one doesn't know anything about the subject and has been willfully ignoring citations as well as generally has been espousing neo-nazi propaganda and antisemitic statements. I've more than once been required to not just cite my statements in the talk but actually quote what those citations say to the moderator. In return when I requested the same regarding the citation outside the controversy section which proves the content of the article and they haven't been able to. Instead, I keep getting neo-nazi rhetorical arguments. Just now I quoted the moderator next to a quote from the National Holocaust Museum which word for word matches them up to the definition of a Nazi and I don't mean to call them out like that but I am not sure what else to say? They are saying verbatim the same stuff and acting the same way as well as pulling content from sources like the Human Genome Project and American Society of Human Genetics.

I realize the article won't get pull despite being neo-nazi propaganda, but I'd like to at least cite the controversy and so I am hoping to get this resolved. I really don't mean to call anyone out but again there is no other term for it.

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

I created a talk for the controversy section, cited as well as quoted the citations, pointed out the flaws in the oppositions citations, shown where citations in the article were misrepresented on purpose, and have been attempting to peacefully resolve this through discussion.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The article and related articles should come down. They were identified as scientific racism by the Human Genome Project and the review boards which earlier recognized the works in the citations issued a letter discrediting the entire body of work in the field and neo-nazism. If the articles will not be removed then the controversy and the industries moves to remove this rhetoric needs to be included either in the article and related ones or as a new article linked to the others.

• No, I will not participate with a tendentious text walling IP who is making wild accusations of antisemitism and neonazism with no basis.Andre🚐12:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Northeastern University (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Relativebalance (talk ·contribs)
• GuardianH (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

A particular user wants to remove a significant amount of sourced content from the article due to perceived bias. I disagree with the categorization of bias, being a long time maintainer of the article. I'd like an unbiased third party to weight in

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northeastern_University#Major_edits_proposed_by_GuardianHhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GuardianH#Recent_College/University_Edits

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think conclusively weighing in on the issue will be sufficient so long as there is good faith.

• Volunteer Note - First, the filing party has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Second, if the filing editor is asking for an unbiased opinion, aThird Opinion might be a less time-consuming process (but DRN is still available with proper notice).Robert McClenon (talk)02:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I had notified the user of this on the Northeastern talk page, but I've now additionally notified them on this talk page. I hope we can still proceed with this DRN, thank you.Relativebalance (talk)03:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The other editor has not responded 48 hours after being notified, but is editing. Participation in DRN is voluntary. This case will be left open for maybe another day before being closed due to lack of response.Robert McClenon (talk)16:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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