basic income dispute resolution 

I don't understand the finding "futile", or how to proceed to resolve the issue.  

Regarding the [Wikipedia,_bicycles,_and_wagons] reference, its my understanding that I am building a bicycle, that may be slightly off spec, and the editors are ordering the steel melted and shipped to hell, instead of allowing the bicycle to be refined into spec.  I point out also that the [basic income] is listed as a priority by four wikigroups, and so it is a pretty important bicycle.  Also the nature of basic income is at a theoretical philosophy stage, and the highest quality references possible are available to verify and preferably succinct, and high quality blogs provide the best verifiability, IMO, but regardless of this opinion, a section on proposed benefits does not need prestigious academic references if the claim being made is that the ideas and rationale has merely been proposed.  To keep the bicycles/wagons analogy, the page was a high quality bicycle, and an important bicycle to 4 wikigroups.  There is a difference of opinion over whether the bicycle meets specs, but it is a functional bicycle that is more useful than a pile of melted metal shipped far away.