Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Autism	In Progress	Oolong (t)	14 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours	Димитрий Улянов Иванов (t)	58 minutes
Sri Lankan Vellalar	In Progress	Kautilyapundit (t)	12 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours
Imran Khan	New	SheriffIsInTown (t)	8 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 22 hours	SheriffIsInTown (t)	1 days, 1 hours
Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)	In Progress	Abo Yemen (t)	2 days, 23 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days,	Abo Yemen (t)	3 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 18:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Current disputes

Template talk:People's Party (Spain)/meta/color

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Impru20 on 09:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Template talk:People's Party (Spain)/meta/color (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Impru20 (talk · contribs) Sfs90 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This is a reopen of a previous DRN request, that was closed because the issue had not been discussed on the corresponding talk page. Now it has, yet to no avail: user keeps making edits even when discussion is not over, and yet still keeps almost entirely ignoring what I'm saying and tries to push forward his views nonetheless, engaging in an edit warring behaviour. He is an user who has been involved in edit warrings in the past and, just as of recently, seems to be acting in the same way with other users, so I'm losing hope that I'll be able to make him hear me some day without any help. I'm considering to bring this to the AN, but don't want to have to go to those extremes. Have you tried to resolve this previously? There have been attempts of discussions in several Template talk pages, in our respective talk pages, several requests in edit summaries to make the user to actually go to talk and enter a discussion with me (as far as it goes, he only presents me "his evidence" and push his edit forward without discussing nor answering my own statements). As far as it goes, he just ignores what I'm saying, and once he does get his edit pushed forward, he not even cares to discuss anymore. How do you think we can help? To discourage Sfs90 from edit warring, as well as to convince him to actually enter into discussion before trying to press forward his changes (which are clearly disputed). And that discussion means that, for a disputed edit to be brought forward, it has to be discussed and consensus reached. I also think we would need some kind of moderator or something in the debate, because it's only two of us. Summary of dispute by Sfs90 According to the talk of the template, I presented some sources about the color used by the party, in their logo and their campaign material. Impru20 said that the manual I quoted was only for the european elections (maybe, or maybe not, we don't know if the colors said in the manual were used only in that election). But after reading the complete issue, it looks more clearly that the party doesn't have any kind of "official statement" about the color (instead of other parties like UPyD and Citizens). The issue in that two parties was solved, but in People's Party case I give the benefit of the doubt, because there's no clarity about a color that should be used, and if Impru20 thinks that an intermediate shade or color could be more suitable to generate some type of consensus, I'll agree with that. For me, there's no more discussion about that and I close my opinion in the case. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Template talk:People's Party (Spain)/meta/color discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hello, I am Rider ranger47, a DRN volunteer. Please remember we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. Once all users have posted their statements, we will begun discussion. Rider ranger47 Talk 11:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC) What manual where you following when changing the color? Rider ranger47 Talk 22:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC) This manual. --Sfs90 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Giuliano Mignini

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by JoeMCMXLVII on 10:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Giuliano Mignini (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved JoeMCMXLVII (talk · contribs) 109.145.67.105 (talk · contribs) Vituzzu (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Editor Vituzzu placed a POV tag in the article as a "drive-by". Two other editors disagreed with the tag's validity and removed it. The result is a slow edit war. As explained on the talk page, the existence of a POV tag graphically casts doubt on the objectivity of an article and I think it should not be there without good reason. In my view, no good reason has yet been given. Postscript: I’ll add that the alleged POV seems to result from the article describing properly sourced examples of the subject’s career, which alarmed Italians and eventually much of the English-speaking world when the subject brought abortive criminal charges against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (among other things, it was Mignini who concocted the scenario of Meredith Kercher being murdered in a satanic sex ritual). The article doesn’t seem to be biased in any way. Rather, it is about a controversial Italian prosecutor. I’ll also point out that Vituzzu can, of course, edit anything in the article he thinks is incorrect, or correct any imbalance by adding more positive material, but instead simply brands it with a POV tag and alleges that those who think the tag is inappropriate are biased. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on talk page. How do you think we can help? Informed opinion on the use and misuse of POV tags. Summary of dispute by 109.145.67.105 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Vituzzu Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Actually I don't see any real dispute, I raised some problems and I'm waiting for 3rd-party opinions. There are no deadlines in removing a pov tag nor a preventive consensus is needed. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Meanwhile you removed the tag for the n-th time. Then why did you open a DR? --Vituzzu (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I removed the tag twice. Someone else removed it once. All three times were in accordance with Wikipedia policy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV#When_to_remove. You have third-party opinions on the talk page and if you honestly can't see a dispute then perhaps others here will help you. That's my hope. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Not really, you were already told there are no deadlines in removal. Honestly I think you're the alleged second user but nonetheless this you didn't respect the relevant policies at all. People writing a certain content are supposed to oppose tags on their content, that's why third opinions are needed. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Regarding "Honestly I think you're the alleged second user", I have a distinct advantage over you, Vituzzu, because I know that I'm not and, therefore, I know that you're dangerously prejudiced. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I have a certain experience in making SPIs and you reached my 75% of probability threshold. I'm always ready to be proven wrong. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Talk:Giuliano Mignini discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Coordinator's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm the current Coordinator here. @Vituzzu:: I can't quite tell from what you've said, above, whether or not you wish to participate here. It's your call: No one is ever required to participate in moderated content dispute resolution — basically DRN and formal Mediation — if they do not care to do so. You say that you're waiting for third opinions, but I'm not sure how or in what sense you mean that. Use of dispute resolution processes, especially Third Opinion though DRN does some of that as well, can help with that. Parallel processes cannot be pending at multiple dispute resolution venues, but if you wish to say that you do not want to participate here but want instead to file a request at Third Opinion, this request will be closed and you will be free to do so. Another method of bringing in additional opinions is, of course, to file a Request for Comments. Finally, you can also do none of that and just wait for other opinions to come in at the article talk page (though if your opponent then files for a Third Opinion, or files a Request for Comments, there's not much that you can do about it since your participation is not essential to those processes going forward). Please clarify whether or not you wish to participate here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC) @TransporterMan: actually I had already stopped reverting before being involved into this "formal" DRN, meanwhile my counterpart went on removing the tag I added and writing me lots of nice things. DRN's main pillar is the formal equivalence of all involved parties and honestly I'm tired of this ongoing vilification of one of them. Also I've asked a check about this incident from fellow checkusers because I feel to be way fooled. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Please plainly clarify whether or not you wish to participate here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I'm here and I stopped editing the page, even if my counterpart didn't, so it's definitely a yes, since it seems the only way to get 3rd-party opinions. Just to clarify if *real* 3rd party users will say the page is neutral I'll be pretty fine. Maybe I perceive it as being not neutral since I strongly believe it's not notable at all. I say so much times "3rd party" because I cannot consider two (though I think "one", actually) users "owning" the page as actual "3O". Generally people adding a disputed content are not the rightest people to judge tags about it. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Repeating what I said above and regarding "Honestly I think you're the alleged second user", I have a distinct advantage over you, Vituzzu, because I know that I'm not and, therefore, I know that you're dangerously prejudiced. You're out of order and that answers your other question: why did I take this matter to Dispute Resolution? JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC) As I just told you in the upper section I have a certain experience in making SPIs, I saw several clues but I can, of course, be wrong. This, anyway, doesn't weaken my assertion you're not a 3O because you're involved in writing this article. Try numbering parties you're the 1O, I'm the 2O who is waiting for some redeeming 3Os ;) --Vituzzu (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Ok, I see you have already started without a volunteer. Have you resolved this issue or does conversation need to continue? Please remember that we comment on content here, not users. Rider ranger47 Talk 15:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC) @Rider ranger47: any opinion about content is very welcome for me. As I already tried to explain in talkpage I think the paragraph "role of prosecutor in Italy" is a bit off-topic and it tends to depict Italian prosecutors as loose cannons. Also one of the main sources (note 8 and 9) is pretty outdated, dating back to 1994. The overall page gives me the idea of an underlying "hey! Look who did accuse Knox et al!"-bias. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I thought TransporterMan had volunteered. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is resolved if Vituzzu will state that a POV tag is unwarranted. Thank you, JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (editconflicted twice)Basically you say the only solution is your solution, that's so collaborative. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC) @Vituzzu: Have you agreed to this? Rider ranger47 Talk 15:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Nope, if I thought the POV tag were unwarranted I wouldn't had even added it. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Why doesn't Vituzzu do the blinding obvious and edit the article so as to remove what he thinks is bias (within the terms of Wikipedia procedure and protocol). As I've said here and on the article's talk page, just shoving in a POV tag makes it graphically clear to most readers that the factual content of the article is doubtful and devalued because it's biased but without stating why. I think that's misuse of the POV tag. That's why I'm here. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. @JoeMCMXLVII: Please only comment on content, not users. It violates the DRN rules. According to the templates documentation, it says it can be removed if the issue is not clear. So what is the issue? Rider ranger47 Talk 16:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC) That's a good point, Rider ranger47. It's the point I wanted resolved. My apologies go to you and Robert McClenon in regard to violation of DRN rules. If I need to be clearer then I'll add that a section entitled "Role of prosecutors in Italy" is not irrelevant in an article about an Italian prosecutor and that historical facts dating back to 1994 are not outdated. Removal of facts from 1994 would be revisionism, distinctly biased towards the subject of the article. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Why this attack? I said a 1994 source about judicial system is *outdated*: since 1994 Italy had 12 different governments and many recommendations from EU have been included within all the four codes. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Any notion that this is an attack is subjective. As stated above, you placed a drive-by POV tag and reinstated it despite two editors' subsequent and disapproving actions, both justified on the article's talk page. I know that I'm not allowed to comment on your POV (which is a bit tricky because that's what this argument is all about) but, in answer to your question and, more importantly, for the sake of Wikipedia, please consider the evidence against your action and, please, stop being the victim here. The victims are those who've suffered injustice and, more significantly in regard to this particular Wikipedia article, those who administered said injustice. When you accept that the information in the article as it stands is factually correct and when you cease complaining on the basis of your 75% sockpuppet detection criteria then we can cease arguing. With kind regards, JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Yet some ad hominem arguments. Can you please plainly list those "evidences"? Also I'd like to know which "pov" do you ascribe to me. I edited as a both user and steward on lots of wikis but it's the second time I see such an overreaction to a simple pov tag. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC) No comment, other than to say that you exhaust reason and that's why you're here. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC) With respect to Rider ranger47 and Robert McClenon, I apologise again, but at least everyone can see what we're trying to deal with. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC) (edit conflicted)I expressed some reasoning (maybe wrong or maybe right), I tried ignoring your violations of the DRN process, your allusive mention of my alleged pov, etc etc. You simply went on removing the tag without even try to discuss, what should I do now? --Vituzzu (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Nothing, it's clear that you shouldn't have added the tag in the first place. 109.145.67.105 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Why? --Vituzzu (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Because you gave no objective reasons for doing so, nor did you attempt to edit the article to rectify it. Haven't you just been told that above and earlier on the talk page of the article? This discussion is evidently going nowhere. I'm out. 109.145.67.105 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I did, or better I tried doing it. To there's a POV issue with that page, you, being one of the authors, disagree now we should wait 3Os without insisting on an alleged "self-evident absolute truth". Both of us believe to be right, divergence is common in a collaborative project. Problems arises when one of the involved parts try cheating or nullifying the other one. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Ok, this has gotten way out of hand and off topic. Can all of you agree to resolve this civilly or not? Rider ranger47 Talk 21:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC) There is nothing to resolve. The tag is gone. The onus was always on the person placing the tag to provide coherent reasons for doing so. This did not happen. End of story. 109.145.67.105 (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Actually you removed it against policy, I didn't re-add it because of this DRN (it's a lack of respect for people writing here to going on removing or re-adding the tag). But if you'll quit the DRN I'll re-add it because to me the problem still exists. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I won't quit. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC) If you re-add the tag, you will be in violation of wikipedia policy adding a tag without providing coherent reasons for doing so. You're also expressing an intention to edit war. 109.145.67.105 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC) (Edit conflicted)@JoeMCMXLVII: I am going to ask you to step back from this discussion for repeatedly commenting on users, not content. @Vituzzu: Could you please explain why you think the article should have a POV tag? Rider ranger47 Talk 21:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC) That's fair comment. May I continue contributing here if I stick to criticising content? JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC) No. I have already given you a warning. As the volunteer mediator I have formally asked you to step back from this discussion. Rider ranger47 Talk 21:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC) How was I to know that you're the "volunteer mediator"? I'd have given you even more respect had someone told me so. Honestly! JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC) (editconflicted twice)As I said before, the paragraph about prosecutors in Italy depicts them as loose cannons, using outdated sources (some of the issues raised in one of them were mitigated by later reforms) without mentioning, for instance, how their roles are separated "in time" (it's a softer separation than USA one but it exists).@Salvio giuliano: knows Italian judicial system better than be and he might help resolving the dispute. The overall tone of the page gives me the impression the subject is depicted as a visionary. Just to clarify, I'm really not interested in "spectacularized" murder trials: I escape from those TV-shows obsessively doing reports of ongoing processes or investigations, so I am not a supporter of neither the "guilty" nor "innocence" parties. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC) This is your subjective opinion. The section of the article in question is neutral in tone and well referenced.109.145.67.105 (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC) And this is your opinion as one of the author. You should had waited for 3O before removing the tag then. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I don't understand your jargon. The tag was removed because there was no justification for it being there. I don't accept your subjective view that the article depicts Italian prosecutors as 'loose cannons'.109.145.67.105 (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC) That's pretty legit, you're one of the main authors of the text I'm criticizing, so it's normal you believe it's right. Everyone who is driven by good faith writes what he believes it's right. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I'm not criticising anyone in particular but I do think that someone here is fighting phantoms in the dark. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I'll let @Rider ranger47: answer to this. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC) @Vituzzu are you claiming I am a main author of the Mignini article? Where did you get that idea? Is this the legendary Italian detective work in action?109.145.67.105 (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC) So you clarified your pov about the subject. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Did you take my comment as sarcasm? Why would you do that?109.145.67.105 (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yay, go go go! JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I have made a few small edits to the Mignini article years after most of it was written, that's been it. I don't know who Vituzzu imagines me to be in his world.109.145.67.105 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Just among the last 50 edits I see this editwar for instance, but also those edits. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Not by any stretch a main author then. And the editwar you refer to is not my IP.109.145.67.105 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC) It's a dangerous world and, I'm quite sure, ordinary Wikipedia readers don't want to be there. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I've been dealing with trolls for years, so it took a bit more dedication to make me go nuts. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Do you retract your bogus claim that I (a British person by the way) am a main author of the article?109.145.67.105 (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Do you retract your suggestion that I am a troll? It's important for your credibility. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Can we have another mediator please.109.145.67.105 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I promise never to comment again on the above terminated discussion. Can we have another mediator, please? JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC) (Edit conflicted) The DRN co-coordinator has been notified about this discussion and will respond soon. Rider ranger47 Talk 23:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Go on, Vituzzu, take courage, do it now, before you make an even bigger arse of yourself. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Volunteer comment - A registered editor and an unregistered editor have requested another mediator. You got one, for a few minutes, while I close this thread as failed because the participants wouldn't stop complaining about each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Safety behaviors

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by GoldenCirclet on 02:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• GoldenCirclet (talk · contribs)
• Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs)
• Prof Haeffel (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The safety behaviors article was flagged as having undue weight on psychopathology because it does not include any information about safety behaviors used in the workforce or other potentially dangerous situations. I (GoldenCirclet) claim that this article is not related to safety behaviors in the workforce. Safety behaviors used in anxiety disorders increase anxiety when they are meant to decrease anxiety, and treatments such as exposure and response prevention therapy are used to reduce these safety behaviors. Safety behaviors used in the workforce promote physical safety and should be enforced. A possible solution is to rename the article as "safety behaviors (anxiety)" to differentiate the article from other safety behavior articles when they are formed, including those used in the workplace.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have provided quotes from cited articles that show that safety behaviors used in anxiety disorders are designed to reduce anxiety but instead lead to an increase in anxiety.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to request an outside opinion on this dispute to determine how best to resolve it. Andrew D. has not yet responded to my last response, and I do not know if changing the article title is the best mode of action at this point.

Summary of dispute by Andrew D.

I have been busy with other things but have returned to update the matter. To help achieve compromise and consensus, I have accepted the title change proposed by GoldenCirclet and have created a disambiguation page to provide links to other contexts which readers might be wanting. Andrew D. (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Prof Haeffel

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

It appears the primary reason this article was flagged was because there was debate about whether or not "safety behaviors" represent a psychological construct or more general definition that includes being safe in work, driving, job, etc. I argued that the safety behaviors discussed in this article focus on a particular class of behaviors that are used to reduce anxiety and fear in those with anxiety related disorders; these behaviors are clearly related to psychology, and thus, the emphasis on psychology is appropriate. The behaviors are very different than general safety rules and regulations, which I believe to be an entirely different topic. I vote the article stay as is and the dispute be resolved. That said, a title change could be considered to make clear the topic is in relation to anxiety (e.g., Safety Behaviors in Anxiety). Prof Haeffel (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Safety behaviors discussion

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

Hello, I am rider ranger47 a volunteer mediator. I have looked through the comments and it looks like this issue has been resolved. Is this correct? Rider ranger47 ^Talk 12:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by another volunteer - It appears that this is primarily an article naming issue, and that the article in question is about Safety behaviors (anxiety), which is a psychological syndrome associated with anxiety disorders. (These behaviors, while meant to mitigate the effect of anxiety, in focusing on the anxiety, can complicate the anxiety.) It also appears that one of the parties made Safety behaviors temporarily into a redirect to Safety behaviors (anxiety) in order to create a disambiguation page, and then create a separate article about safety behavior in workplaces, transportation, etc. If the parties to this thread agree that that was appropriate, then I agree with the moderator that this can be closed as resolved. Is that correct, or does there need to be discussion about naming, or about anything else? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that everything needs to be correct, although I am uncertain about the "undue weight" tag being left in the article since the article was meant to specifically talk about safety behaviors in anxiety. Should that be another discussion? GoldenCirclet (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Social Democrats,_USA#Lede

– New discussion.

Filed by GPRamirez5 on 01:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Social Democrats, USA#Lede (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• GPRamirez5 (talk · contribs)
• Dame Etna (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In March 2015, I made extensive contributions to the Social Democrats, USA page. These contributions reflect the scholarly consensus on the history of SDUSA. In May, my contributions were completely deleted by Dame Etna. DE made a special emphasis on deleting references to neoconservatism, deleting references to the right-wing/left-wing schism in the Socialist Party, and references to influential theorist Max Schachtman. All of those subjects figure prominently in scholarly, peer-reviewed literature - and even modern journalism - on SDUSA.

In our discussions, DE shows no recognition for the significance of peer-reviewed academic scholarship, but instead second-guesses it with his/her own interpretations, and counter-poses his/her own original research in the article, stitched together from 40 year old newspaper articles.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Dame Etna and I have engaged extensively on the Talk page

How do you think we can help?

By evaluating the legitimacy of our contributions and sources.

Summary of dispute by Dame Etna

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

Talk:Social Democrats,_USA#Lede discussion

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