Misplaced Pages

• Skip to open disputes
• skip to newest thread
• (purge cache)

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

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 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

• 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).

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252

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

• Leveson Inquiry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Meerta (talk · contribs)
• Jimthing (talk · contribs)
• Paul MacDermott (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Leveson enquiry is a two-part inquiry investigating the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal. It took evidence over nine months, and last month a 2000 page report was published for part one. It is the largest event for the press in the UK since the war, and has ramifications well beyond the press. The report collated the evidence, commented, drew inferences and made recommendations. E.g. Sections of the press had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people".

The report contained a mistake concerning one of the founders of the Independent newspaper (i.e. Brett Straub - who did not found it), which may have come about by an assistant on the report relying on a Misplaced Pages that had been edited in bad faith. This was talked about in a humorous manner on a satirical news quiz programme. This now has a whole section to itself on a rather Leveson Inquiry spartan page. This seems out of proportion and similar types of addition had already been argued against in other Talk page sections.

Arguments are being ignored and consent and conclusions assumed and I have requested that certain comments about me be taken back. The tone is surprising in parts. There was a period of edit reverting, maybe warring, which may seems to be continuing.

The discussion in question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Leveson_Inquiry#Brett_Straub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerta (talk • contribs) 21:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerta (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

All the appropriate arguments have been made in the section often by more than one person.

How do you think we can help?

It might be helpful if one or more experienced Wiki editors with background knowledge of Leveson can read carefully through this section http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Leveson_Inquiry#Brett_Straub (including sub-heading "Mentioned on Have I Got News for You", and now part of "Further info needed") and assess everything that has been said. There have already been four or five contributors to the discussion.

Opening comments by Paul MacDermott

I feel this should really be taken to WP:3O before coming here, but since the discussion is open now I'll add my thoughts. I originally raised the issue of whether to include a brief reference to the incorrect naming of Straub as a founder of The Independent in the Leveson report after seeing an item about it on the aforementioned quiz. I thought it possible someone might decide to add it so a discussion was needed, but had no strong feelings about its inclusion myself. Having seen the information added and removed by other users I became more involved in the talk page discussion, but have made minimal editing to the Straub section itself. I removed some unreferenced text and suggested sources should be added. 2 were subsequently provided, 1 of them from YouTube, which I removed per WP:YOUTUBE amid possible copyvio concerns. To me there seems to be a WP:UNDUE element to the section as it stands, although I'm not against the idea of a brief mention of Straub in an expanded version of the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 22:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by AJHingston

As I have been involved in the debate I should comment here. The issue seems to me to be how WP:UNDUE should be interpreted in the context of WP:NPOV as a whole when the topic has been the subject of widespread media debate, a report totalling almost 2000 pages and nearly 600 witness statements. The article has been recently (and I think reasonably) pruned, for example to remove the list of oral witnesses, many of whom are notable enough for a BLP. In some cases their evidence was a top news item. The inquiry and the issues raised have been the subject of very extensive media coverage. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have all spoken about the recommendations and their differences are the subject of cross party talks. In this context, the inclusion in the report of an error from Misplaced Pages is of course something of great interest to Wikipedians but it is not seriously suggested to have any material significance nor do there appear to be other similar errors in the report. True it has been picked up on a popular satire show, but such shows have also referred to other aspects of the inquiry. They are tribute to the interest and importance of the subject but not included in the article. If the Brett Straub affair is to stand as now and be given due weight then the rest of the article will need to be enormously expanded to include the evidence of witnesses, the media coverage, the detailed recommendations of the inquiry, the discussions about implementation and the alternative proposals of the industry. Some of that may be desirable, but in total it will not lead to a good article. A good balanced article needs to be selective. --AJHingston (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Jimthing

Re. the Youtube video: it has fair use rights attributed to it, so whilst we do have WP:YOUTUBE we also have WP:ELNEVER (precisely "...or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use"), and anyway there is also another BBC cite given also, added when link was live. Re. the Straub section inclusion: I partially agree with AJHingston on his points that the article needs to be expanded upon to include much more missing detail, which it is sorely in need of, this would then negate the WP:UNDUE argument being raised here against this interesting detail. I did in fact raise the issue of missing detail in the page talk ("Further info needed?") which Meerta agreed with, but instead of adding anything to expand the page to therefore negate the UNDUE reasoning, instead they wasted more time opening this DR instead, running contradictory to the UNDUE issue they are suggesting by not expanding the article to negate it's prominence. To be honest I can't really believe this has been taken to a DR for it's inclusion, as whilst the inquiry/report is of a serious nature, this doesn't negate being able to have less serious points like this Straub incident too, as it forms a wider point of interest to the reader. Examples of this can be seen across site, including—but not exclusively—a great deal of articles with Trivia sections on them, listing such info for this very reason, so they are not mutually exclusive types of info.
Jimthing (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Leveson Inquiry

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I closed this because it appeared that the filing editor may have left Misplaced Pages and because no volunteer had yet addressed the case. I see that it has now been reopened by the filing editor, which is fine, but when a case has been open as long as this one and no one has addressed it it is frequently the case that there is no volunteer who cares to do so (and some may feel that for one reason or another that they should not take it because they are non-neutral). We will let it sit for another day or three to see if someone may choose to take it, but if they do not then I'll probably close it again as stale. I do not know if the bot will relist it in the case summary or not. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been re-listed. Thanks for clarifying. Please let me know where to take it next if no one does take it up. Edit: For the record, I haven't done anything that should lead anyone to think I've left Misplaced Pages. I see this comment on the site sometimes, but now it's been applied to me I must say I don't understand it.Meerta (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2012.(UTC)

To clarify to volunteers, this discussion still hasn't been opened. Meerta (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I am willing to take the case. I will do a quick read of the situation tomorrow and come back here. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 06:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the dispute still going on? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. If it gets resolved before the volunteer opens it one of us will delete this. (It has already been deleted once, which meant I had to open it again...Meerta (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take the place of Hahc21 for this dispute if he does not mind. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Either way, perhaps good idea to delete this stuff before opening?? Meerta (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to delete it all. I will just ask the other parties if continuing is needed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind. Sorry, I had another big personal issue that caught me off-wiki since yesterday morning. I will be glad to help Ebe123 to solve this matter, as I have already read all the discussion. — ΛΧΣ 19:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd actually forgotten about this until I was reminded of it this morning. I'd even forgotten who Brett Straub is to be perfectly honest, which I suspect probably goes for most people. Taking a fresh look at this, I think it could be briefly mentioned in the article, but not in so much detail as it presently is. Alternatively, how about mentioning him at The Independent article as the incident really concerns that. If a 2,000 page report has just one mistake that's pretty good going, I would think. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

So, which of the users were actually against the inclusion of the content? In my opinion, if its necessary and gives any value to the article, then the content should be added. Then it comes the how. Its addition needs to be proportionate to the value it gives. If it gives little value, then a line briefing the information is enough. — ΛΧΣ 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Of the users with Opening Comments here (plus the filing editor, me), all were against this degree of inclusion except Jimthing. I think both myself and AJHingston think there's no grounds for inclusion at all, and Paul MacDermott suggests (I think) it might be better in the article for the Independent newspaper as anywhere. There had been other discussion on the page as you'll know from the discussion about "novelty" or pop inclusions, when weighed against an inquiry and report of great gravity. It is worth remembering when looking at sources for this article that opinions in press and related sources have to be viewed through a special filter for this story, because this was an inquiry into and with consequences for a powerful press. The reporting in the inquiry itself was itself considered relevant to the report. (Incidentally the distinction between fact and opinion having become less distinct in the presentation of current affairs was a theme in the evidence to the inquiry.)

The other discussions tended to conclude that such types of inclusions should be left out. There was a Christmas compilation of Have I Got News For You shown last week which had a sequence about the Leveson inquiry. Leveson had been discussed repeatedly on the show, but the Brett Straub thing wasn't included here, and to be honest I was not really surprised. The clips focused on the various subjects of the inquiry as the objects of satire, rather than the inquiry itself. Meerta (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It certainly isn't necessary for the article (re. previous post by ΛΧΣ). Meerta (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I do feel quite strongly about this because the inquiry was on a serious topic on which the Wikipeida Foundation itself might well have been called to give evidence (as were Google, Facebook etc). It deserves a good article. It would be difficult to convey to outsiders the extent of coverage that this topic has had over more than a year, and the nature of that with journalists largely seeking to justify their own position and actions and many others using it as an opportunity to express contempt for the profession. Somebody trying to use the internet to find out what the inquiry was about and what it said will have a hard job without resorting to Misplaced Pages unless they refer to the report itself. If I felt that the Brett Straub affair was typical of one significant strand in the reaction to the inquiry and the the issues it raised then I would not object, but it is not - it is really about Misplaced Pages. Does anybody want to argue that it deserves a similar section in the Misplaced Pages article? Yet the justification is as strong. --AJHingston (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I see that a proper consensus is not reached yet. First, I'd like to point several personal comments over the section: adding "(series 44 episode 8, originally broadcast on 7 December 2012)" in prose is overdetailed, it fits better within the references; This: "...originated from an erroneous malicious edit" should be in quotes, because there is no way to know how that really happened unless the person who wrote the report said so. Is this the case? I won't give my opinions about the section itself yet without getting more into the content. — ΛΧΣ 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No the inquiry haven't commented on this (or anything else really since publication of the report). It isn't something that could impact on the conclusions and recommendations. Meerta (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume that this means the inquiry didn't affirmed that it was "an erroneous malicious edit", but information posted somewhere else no? (newspapers, etc)? In which, if that's the case, it should be taken with a grain of salt and put into quotes. I will check the sources to be more in context. I'd like to see any update regarding what the parties think. Paul MacDermott expressed that he "think it could be briefly mentioned in the article, but not in so much detail as it presently is." From your (Meerta) comments above, I think that your live of view aligns woth Paul's one: it might be mentioned, but briefly. I'd liek to hear the opinion of the rest of the users involved, please. — ΛΧΣ 00:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The inquiry won't affirm this, because it doesn't have any bearing on the conclusions and so on. The report is finished and this would be treated the same way as an irrelevant error in some court judgement. Others inferred that the malicious edit in Misplaced Pages was the cause.

My view probably aligns with AJHingston's. I think it's a frippery, irrelevant and only worthy of an amusing aside (though not here) that probably has more relevance to Misplaced Pages than anything else. The inquiry has the same kind of gravity as a major criminal or civil trial. As AJHingston says, it's hard to express the amount of coverage there has been about it in the UK. HIGNFY's Xmas show had a series of clips from over the year, but unsurprisingly (to me at least) this wasn't one of them. The Spectator's assertion along the lines that the report is a "cut and paste" job has no evidence to back it up. The 2000-page report was praised by all sides in Parliament as a great piece of work. It is intended, as it says, as a collation of the enormous body of written and oral evidence given to the inquiry, with comment, inferences and conclusion from this evidence, and recommendations.

From page 51 of the report: "As for the Report, the consequences are different. In an ideal world, I would have wished to write, re-write and hone this Report so that every nuance could be the subject of mature reflection. As previous inquiries have shown, given the amount of evidence whether oral,documentary or read-in, that would have been a task of very many months duration. This Report, therefore, is the work of many hands,1 all working to my direction and reflecting my views; that is the inevitable consequence of the way in which the work has had to be done. I place on record my appreciation to all those who have collated the evidence in relation to different aspects of the Report. Having said that, I repeat that every finding of fact, every conclusion and every recommendation expressed in this Report is mine alone. Equally, any errors are my responsibility."

The footnote says: "That is to say, I have been assisted in the drafting by Counsel and by civil servant members of the Inquiry team; the Assessors have been invited to provide comments on drafts only where appropriate."

All this incident tells us is that even employees of the most reputable organisations can still fall foul of Misplaced Pages's inaccuracies. It has no direct relevance to the inquiry or the report, or the issues they were about. The fact that it was seized on in some quarters to try and diminish the report to any degree won't be surprising to anyone who followed the inquiry carefully. Meerta (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Meerta is misrepresenting the issue here repeatedly, yet again. The issue is nothing to do with what the inquiry/report was/wasn't about (or its 'seriousness'), nor even how the media was/wasn't portraying it (positively or negatively). The issue is, why should WP all of a sudden remove all points of humour across the articles on site —regardless of the articles seriousness or any other reason— when they never have been before. The Straub section is one of these, and like other similar ones, it's been added right at the bottom of the article in one small, short, to-the-point paragraph, separate from reaction section (hence no inference thus taken in it making any judgements about the report), with those HIGNFY refs there, as previously explained, because it's a news programme on the main national broadcaster watched by a mere ~7 million viewers weekly in this country, giving it some form of national prominence, much like any newspaper, and helping prove AJHingsons point about "extent of coverage that this topic has had over more than a year"—certainly enough to justify it's inclusion here, and the Inquiry's repeated mention on the programme proves that. As for the description "erroneous malicious edit by an anonymous contributor", well what else was it?...erroneous (as it certainly wasn't correct, it must be an error, of course), malicious (it wan't done for good reasons, regardless of being a joke, so yes again), anonymous contributor (the edits were by an IP address only, presumably an anonymous associate of the aforementioned, so again, yes); pretty much defines this descriptive prose doesn't it. Again, while incidents like the Straub one are not part of the report directly, this doesn't preclude them form being mentioned as part of related information; they are not mutually exclusive for inclusion on article pages. Jimthing (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, my issue is with malicious. You can't be sure why it was done. It could've been a mistake, and mistakes are not malicious. That word should not be used as it cannot be sourced nor proven as to be true. My recommendation is to leave erroneous edit by an anonymous contributor, and try to source it if possible. But going back into topic, I am not completely sure wich is your side now Jim. Are you in favour of the inclusion of the content? If so, at which degree? A passing mention or a three-to-four line paragraph like it is presented now? if not, why? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ 23:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you actually checked the HIGNFY cites given (hence why included in the article cites in the first place), part of what you hear them mention is how some anonymous 'friend' contributed to WP adding Straub's name across many articles across the site, in effect giving him a 'pretend' public profile trying to warrant his inclusion in his own WP page by linking to him across several WP pages, with the Independent newspaper quote ending-up being cut/pasted into the Report. So no, it wasn't a mistake but was malicious, as per my explanation above. I have edited the point to make this clear, and I have removed the wrongly included "(series 44 episode 8, originally broadcast on 7 December 2012)" which is in the cite itself hence is over-detailed, as you previously mentioned above. Apart from that I'm for leaving as it is, as there is nothing wrong with what's there for the reasons I have given (both above, and on the page talk), the details explain the incident. Thanks for taking the time to review the dispute BTW. Jimthing (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

But that is all about Misplaced Pages, and might be a response to my question whether anyone thinks it significant enough to be in an article on that topic (such as Vandalism on Misplaced Pages). Your case for inclusion in the Leveson article seems to be that you thought that the HIGNFY piece was funny and it referred to Leveson. But there has been very extensive coverage of the inquiry and report in straight reportage, op-ed pieces and comedy shows. What is its relative importance to, say, the evidence that the then deputy Prime Minister had his messages tapped by the media and that the police took no action, to take just one of hundreds of possible examples? Yes, we could try to cover it all in Misplaced Pages, but it would have to be a very long article. That is where WP:UNDUE comes into play. --AJHingston (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I must confess I didn't realise we had an article about Vandalism on Misplaced Pages, but it seems an appropriate place for this incident. ALso happy with the toning down in the Leveson article, so I've no objections to how things stand now. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

When I suggested (in common with AJHingston) that it should only be included in a much longer article, I really meant only in principle - in reality it would have to be a miscellaneous encyclopaedia of a kind which probably wouldn't get written about this. I see nothing wrong with humour in some types of article, but for this one not so sure, and these types of inclusions were argued in other sections with the "novelty" items ending up being removed. But I can't have any huge objection to the way it is now, with the prominence and phrasing it has. I'm ok with this.

In general, it's just not a very comprehensive article. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal - that looks like a good article. On the other hand, the article for the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday in Derry is also quite short, despite being several times longer and more expensive than the Leveson inquiry, so perhaps this is acceptable for this. I'm sure the article on Bloody Sunday itself is a lot more comprehensive and draws on the Saville report.

As for the section moving to the Vandalism article, that's seems fine but I would still remove the Spectator reference. It isn't relevant to vandalism but more importantly it's misleading and simply untrue, as I've tried to explain. (The report is intended in part as a collation of the evidence.) To me it's an example of the politically motivated commentary that came after, but there are so many good examples of that. Meerta (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article is not a very good one as it stands. There was a much longer version prior to publication of the report which had a great deal about the process of the inquiry, though not the detail of the evidence before it nor the commentary upon it, and that was largely removed and briefly summarised along with a short section on the report itself. One of the things that needs to be done is to work through the report and summarise more fully. But I did feel that there was no point in doing this unless we could reach a consensus on the amount of detail, or the inclusion of odd things people found interesting (of which there were a great many especially given the prominence of the witnesses). --AJHingston (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:List of indigenous peoples (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ubikwit (talk · contribs)
• Moxy (talk · contribs)
• Tritomex (talk · contribs)
• Evildoer187 (talk · contribs)
• Dailycare (talk · contribs)
• HaleakalAri (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute relates to including Palestinians on the list. Some editors have argued that Palestinians should be excluded if Jews are. The scope of the article was defined by RfC consensus 3/2012 as "the narrow, internationally recognized definition".

I asked Tritomex if he would concisely describe the relevance of genetics to the discussion. He declined .

Tritomex then attacked me for referring to "Zionist colonialism", but sources making such references had been on the talk page before I had arrived.

Dailycare presented two more official UN publications that explicitly recognize Palestinians as indigenous.

Moxy made following statement, then backtracked when conforming RS were produced. As per all the other RcF on the matter since 2006- both out until recognized by an official indegenous body - so no change from the norm.

Moxy, with a slightly sycophantic tone, responds to Tritomex as follows

Moxy tells me “we're no experts", and declares that he is a geneticist and a musician, which I take to be an indirect admission of his incompetence to be working on the article in the first place.

Tritomex, Moxy, HaleakalAri and Evildoer187 together form a false counter-consensus to that shared by Dailycare and me in relation to the UN RS. They refuse to discuss or recognize RS, or misrepresent others' positions, which has made for a tautological discussion. They are not discussing in good faith, in my opinion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_28#List_of_indigenous_peoples

This RfC Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#RfC:_Should_the_Palestinians_be_included_on_the_list_on_the_basis_of_tacit_UN_recognition_since_at_least_2009.3F

This discussion of unreliable source presented by Evildoer187 Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#Unreliable_source

How do you think we can help?

Clarify the scope of the article as being the "narrow, internationally recognized definition". Insist that editors adhere to WP:TPG, WP:NPA, WP:CIR, and WP:AGF. Experienced editors (some boasting "higher degrees") have consistently been evasive in discussing the facts presented in the sources, which is against policy. If that doesn't change, there is no point in presenting sources to discuss with them in the first place, so they must be made to adhere to relevant Talk page and other policies.

Opening comments by Moxy

Opening comments by Tritomex

Opening comments by Evildoer187

Did you.....just accuse us of conspiring against you? Really?

There is no "evasiveness" taking place, except perhaps by Ubikwit himself. He does not have adequate support or justification for his proposed revisions. Palestinians do not fall under the current criteria for inclusion, and there is no consensus in the UN or anywhere else that considers them to be an indigenous group. We've all explained this to him time and again, but he does not seem willing to accept it. The way I see it, this entire thing is just a ploy to keep this dispute going until he gets what he wants. I'm not playing ball.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Dailycare

Opening comments by HaleakalAri

List of indigenous peoples Talk page discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Henry Kissinger#The Section on Kissinger's Role in Latin America (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Veritas Aeterna (talk · contribs)
• TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

TheTimesAreAChanging and Veritas Aeterna disagree in the following areas:

1. Is the role of Henry Kissinger in the Chile coup d'état that led to the Pinochet regime accurately described in this section or not?

2. Which sources, those of TheTimesAreAChanging, or those of Veritas Aeterna are more reliable?

3. Does this section adhere to neutral point of view? TheTimesAreAChanging believes that the edits of Veritas Aeterna push a negative view of Kissinger's role; Veritas Aeterna believes that the current section pushes an overly positive view of Kissinger's role.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked for a third party opinion. Ray says that my contribution should be shortened as the Chile intervention is less significant than other parts of the Kissinger biography. I agree the whole section should be much shorter, but then if my edits are left out it paints an underduly exculpatory view of Kissinger's actions.

How do you think we can help?

Please have one, or preferably more, experts on Chile and the Pinochet coup d'état review this area, especially those familiar with Kornbluh's work. Part of the dispute is that I believe other sources are either not familiar, or (if they are partisan), choose to ignore this work. More likely they are not familiar with this work, and its analysis of CIA, NSC, White House, FBI, and State Department declassified documents from the Chile Declassification Project. It is key evidence.

Opening comments by TheTimesAreAChanging

Talk:Henry Kissinger#The Section on Kissinger's Role in Latin America discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• HPotato (talk · contribs)
• Mathsci (talk · contribs)
• Dr.K. (talk · contribs)
• GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I want to refer to recent demographic studies that predict Marseille will soon become a Muslim-majority city. There's currently no mention of this in the 'Immigration' section of the article, even though the National Geographic article I originally cited is the first link I get when I type 'Marseille Immigration' into google. The next source I quoted to justify my edit was a BBC page which states that according to demographers, Marseille 'will be the first Muslim-majority city in Western Europe'. Both editors objected that this was on a programme description page, so I have now quoted an article by an academic which implies that Marseille will become a Muslim-majority city around 2030. Both editors continue to object, citing various objections, none of which I feel have a great deal of substance. The significant objections are:

1. the BBC source is not reliable because it is a programme guide;

2. the National Geographic source is not reliable because the forecast is qualified by the word 'likely';

3. neither source is reliable by virtue of insufficient focus on the issue - 'cherry-picking'/out of context;

4. WP:NPOV, and

5. the Boston College source does not make the date of Muslim-majority explicit - WP:CRYSTAL.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is the first time I've raised the matter.

How do you think we can help?

By providing third party opinions.

Opening comments by HPotato

Forecasts of the Muslim population of Marseille were and are the subject of intense media and public interest (the BBC page above is dated 3rd June 2012). Failing to adress the subject in the section of the Marseille article entitled 'Immigration' is a clear-cut case of 'ignoring the elephant in the room'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPotato (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Mathsci

Improperly filed case according to this comment. In addition a third editor disagreeing with HPotato's editing has not been included.

In his second edit to the article HPotato, a very recently created account, threatened to bring it to this board after thirty minutes of editing the article. He was very shortly afterwards blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on the article. Hot off the block, he resumed his disruptive editing on the article and talk page. He reported here, as threatened, after his fourth content edit to wikipedia (with a registered account) and four hours after being unblocked, thinking that this was a place to elicit a third opinion. But it is not. There is nothing to be done here: no dispute. The talk page is the correct place for discussion, which just involves the appropriate use of reliable sources. If one isolated POV-pusher engaging in tendentious editing is unsuccessful in introducing undue poorly sourced speculative content, this noticeboard is not the place to resolve that. That is WP:RSN, in case of doubt. On the talk page HPotato was advised to make an enquiry at WP:RSN about sources, but has not done so.

Detailed discussion continues on Talk:Marseille and should not be fragmented by parallel discussions here because of one highly disruptive user who has made 4 content edits to wikipedia in his brief period as a registered user and who is in dispute with all other editors currently commenting. All detailed remarks about content and sourcing can be found on the article talk page. Transporterman can comment there as another editor if he wishes. This abuse of process will probably be superseded by a report at WP:ANI or WP:AN.

I have watched the neutral and anodyne article Marseille since 2007, with 430 edits. Only very seldom—far less often than on Europe—are there disruptive editors. HPotato follows Pmanderson and Zeromus1, both of whom were blocked by arbcom. Mathsci (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Dr.K.

Per Mathsci's comments above there is a third editor who has not been mentioned, so this is an improperly filed case. HPotato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) insists on adding speculation that in eighteen years from now Marseille will be on the verge of becoming a Muslim-majority city. As I explained in detail on the talkpage of the article such long-term speculation should not be included in the article per WP:CRYSTAL. A third editor has also commented and he said that adding this speculation would also be WP:UNDUE with which I agree. So we have three editors at the talkpage of Marseille who disagree with HPotato. The consensus is already clear. We do not need dispute resolution. We are only here because HPotato does not want to drop the stick. Δρ.Κ.  21:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment For the record. I did not object to the filing of the report. I just said it was improperly filed. Also this case needs no resolution. It is already resolved because the consensus is clear. Δρ.Κ.  22:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by GeorgeLouis

Opening comments by Johnuniq

For the record, there is a silent fourth party, namely myself. Marseille is on my watchlist, and whereas I haven't done much editing anywhere lately, I noticed the article near the top of my watchlist, showing HPotato's second edit. I had a look at the change, and reverted it with an edit summary to the effect that the text was in the wrong place, and if it was wanted elsewhere, it should be discussed on talk. My revert was edit conflicted, and it was Dr.K. who actually reverted HPotato. I didn't notice that until a couple of hours later when I had time to add my thoughts to the talk page, but I saw that Dr.K. had provided such excellent explanations that any comment I might have made would have been superfluous. There is no dispute to resolve, just a new editor who might need advice. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Marseille#Immigration discussion

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. The proper remedy for the omission of a party that any of the parties believes to be essential is simply to add the editor to the editor list and to notify that editor using {{subst:drn-notice}}, not to object to the filing. Since both objectors only mention a "third editor" but do not name that editor, I am loath to add parties who they may not believe to be essential (though I suspect that they're talking about GeorgeLouis) and would ask them to just do it themself, or failing that, to at least say who it is and a DRN volunteer will add them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Correction: I just spotted the link and added GeorgeLouis. I will notify him. TM 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing comments: I'm going to close this because I do believe that there is an adequate consensus against inclusion of the material at this time and in the form and with the sources which are being given to support it. In coming to this decision, I have disregarded all the allegations made about the experience, motivations, conduct, and editing practices of HPotato, all of which are entirely inappropriate for this forum in accordance with its guidelines, and have only considered the edits and sources which HPotato has offered and the arguments made against them. When consensus exists, it is inappropriate for dispute resolution to take place because there is no dispute to resolve and that must always be the first consideration when a DR volunteer takes on a case. However, I also have to say that I believe that this particular consensus is just barely sufficient to have that effect and is limited to the current dispute and current circumstances. Since the discussion is continuing on the article talk page, it may very well be the case that consensus will not exist or will no longer exist if the discussion moves beyond the current edits, sources, arguments, and counterarguments and that dispute resolution may well be appropriate if that occurs. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:38, 3 January 2013 (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.