Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"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
Titel	Status	User	Zeit	User	Zeit	User	Zeit
Algerien	Closed	Lord Ruffy98 (t)	5 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 7 hours
Yasuke	Closed	Tinynanorobots (t)	10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 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 20:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

An Bord Pleanála

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Sun Ladder on 15:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• An Bord Pleanála (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sun Ladder (talk · contribs)
• Blue-Haired_Lawyer (talk · contribs)
• RashersTierney (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article is about a state institution that is quasi-judicial. In effect it is the highest 'court' in Ireland for planning matters. I added a section outlining a recent High Court judgment which found a recent decision of the institution had been biased. Quite a serious and significant finding by the High Court against another state institution.

That section was added in August 2012. It has citations.

Almost immediately User:Blue-Haired_Lawyer tried to delete the section claiming "POV and soapbox". That deletion was reverted and apart from some very questionable edits by a new user called User_talk:Pleanala which were all reverted the section was left alone.

That is until 10 April 2013 when User:Blue-Haired_Lawyer has started to delete the section again. This time he claims its because WP:UNDUE.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I started a discussion on the article page

How do you think we can help?

by providing an outsider's perspective

Opening comments by Blue-Haired_Lawyer

An Bord Pleanala is an Irish administrative tribunal which hears appeals from local councils concerning planning decisions. It hears thousands of cases a year. While the Usk decision was quite controversial, its current billing on the article is completely out of proportion. There was no issue of systemic bias, just one particular decision where the board ignored the directions of a High Court judge on how a case was to be considered after the initial decision had been struck down.

Sun ladder seems intent on making a false inference that because: '[t]he Board is supposed to be unbiased in 100% of its cases. Being biased in just one case is an incredible perversion of justice by the highest "court" on planing matters in Ireland. It raises questions about the fairness of every other case decided by the Board.' It doesn't and as it stands the article gives undue weight to this particular controversy. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by RashersTierney

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

What ever happened to User:Lapsed Pacifist? RashersTierney (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

An Bord Pleanála discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

 DRN Volunteer Note: One party was left off of the list of participants I have added RashersTierney (talk · contribs) to the list. please note I am not taking this case. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hello every one I've had a chance to read over the talk page, and familiarize myself with the article. Provided no one has an objection to me assisting with this dispute I'm going to open this up for discussion. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Cameron. Thanks for taking this case. I'm not really sure of the procedures here. What do you mean by opening this up for discussion? I think we've all kind of set out our stalls. Do you have a view on the dispute? Sun Ladder (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I probably could have been more direct in my opening statement, my apologies. Before I give my views, I would like to hear from blue haired lawyer on why they think UNDUE applies. I think it would be helpful for me to fully understand where both editors are coming from. In the mean time would you care to enlighten me on why you think the information should stay (if you could include relevant policies it would be helpful for me to see where your views come from)? My goal is for both editors to develop an understanding of each other's point of view and then develop a compromise. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 17:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Please remember, you approached me as a 'third disputant'. RashersTierney (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I approached you because I noticed you had recently contributed to the article or on the talk page, if you do not wish to participate you are under no requirement to do so. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. DRN volunteers usually ask if recent editors would like to participate. If you are willing I would like to hear your perspective on the issue. Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• An Bord Pleanála [ABP] is a powerful state institution. It is the 'court' that has the final say on all planing matters for the entire country.

The Irish High Court found that ABP had made biased decisions based on unfathomable reasoning. That is an extremely important and very troubling finding by the High Court against a state institution that is supposed to be entirely impartial, unbiased and fair to all citizens, 100% of the time.

I added a two sentence section with reliable, verifiable, archived citations highlighting the High Court's finding.

Straight away Blue Haired Lawyer deleted the section, giving one reason (POV and soapbox). After being restored the section stayed intact for 7 months until recently when Blue Haired Lawyer again, unilaterally decided the section should be deleted, this time for an entirely different reason (UNDUE).

It would seem that Blue Haired Lawyer just doesn't like the negative section. And his unilateral deletion appears to be censorship.

The manner of the deletion, unilateral, with various different excuses at different times, with out the courtesy of a discussion on the article's Talk Page, or notifying the editor whose work he was deleting also compounds the perception of censorship. For whatever real reason, he just doesn't want the negative section in the article.

Both censorship and not liking and are not valid reasons for deletions on Wikipedia.Sun Ladder (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated to the content dispute (DRN does not comment on editor behavior)
The following discussion has been closed by Cameron11598. Please do not modify it.
There was a discussion at the TP. You [One editor] didn't like the way consensus was going and decided to do a bit of forum shopping. RashersTierney (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC) @RashersTierney: Please remember to comment on content not the editor. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC) The place to discuss content is the Talk Page. I was bringing to attention a matter of behaviour which is contrary to policy. RashersTierney (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

@Sun Ladder, I am going over your response right now, I will wait to comment until we have heard from Blue Haired Lawyer (their last edit was the 26th of April so I will give them A few days to respond)--Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated to the content dispute (DRN does not comment on editor behavior)
The following discussion has been closed by Cameron11598. Please do not modify it.
@RashersTierney. I think you're mistaken. I started the discussion on the Talk Page. I got one reply from Blue Haired Lawyer and he then just continued with his deletions You made one reply that I presumed related to the one sentence you deleted - which I didn't contest or undo (I don't agree with that deletion, but I was willing to compromise and thought the removal of that sentence might satisfy Blue Haired Lawyer and put an end to his deletions - it didn't) I presumed by only deleting that last sentence and leaving the other two you agreed that they were ok. That is the only consensus I can see. But from there, Blue Haired Lawyer just kept on deleting the rest of the section- he made no further attempt at discussion. So he'd delete and I'd restore that went on for a bit. Until I decide that it was pointless and that's why I put in a request for help here. It was only then that Blue Haired Lawyer started to show a bit of courtesy and undid his own deletion and placed the {{undue}} tag on the article.Sun Ladder (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) I probably should have added the tag ages ago. My reason for the deletion of the section remains the same. It picks out one (admittedly fairly significant) controversy giving it undue prominence relative to the subject matter as a whole. While the section is verifiable, its presentation is selective. Yes the board were found to be objectively bias but it was just an issued regarding how the board should determine cases where it is asked to "re-decide" a decision which had previously been quashed. There was no issue of systemic bias. The bias was that the people who had previously decided the case decided it again. Moreover "objective bias" sounds worse than it is. There was no finding that the board were biased, just that there was a reasonable apprehension that they could have been biased. I could edit the section to reflect these points but it would, IMHO, get us past the undue point so I just deleted it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Compromise?

• Blue-Haired Lawyer Would you be willing to compromise and support the inclusion of that section if it was rewritten so it reads similar to the way you phrased it?
• Sun Ladder would that be an acceptable compromise to you? --Cameron11598 (Converse) 18:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• If this is unacceptable to either of you do you have any suggestions on how a compromise might be reached? Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have an objection to a re-write per se. But I do think there are some important differences between Blue Haired Layer's view and mine. For example:

Where Blue Haired Lawyer says "Yes the board were found to be objectively bias but it was just an issue regarding how the board should determine cases…" highlights a key difference between our views on the section.

Where he says "it was just an issue regarding how the board should determine cases…" is an attempt at diminishing and soften the judgement. Adding "it was just an" is a subjective (POV) attempt to lessen the High Court's judgment.

Take away the "it was just an" and you are down to a fundamental and very important function of the board:

"it was an issue regarding how the board should determine cases."

That one of the most fundamental functions of the board should have been found by the High Court to have been biased is a very serious and significant issue and shouldn't be diminished.

Again where Blue Haired Lawyer say "objective bias sounds worse than it is" is his subjective view (POV) that again is an attempt to lessen the judgement.

Which all seems a bit contradictory to his opening line that the judgment is an "admittedly fairly significant" one.

So I'm not sure how a rewrite would bridge that gap Sun Ladder (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• As the article is now I do think the section is in violation of WP:NPOV so it does need a bit of a rewrite. It is borderline on WP:UNDUE. Perhaps if you were to provide a rewrite for review, we could see if it mutually acceptable to both you and blue hard lawyer. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I might have my wires crossed here but do you mean me to do the rewrite? If so I'm not sure that makes sense. I've already written the two sentence section. I've kept it to an absolute minimum with verifiable citations. I don't see there is an WP:NPOV issue and I don't agree its WP:UNDUE. So I don't think I should be the one doing the rewrite if you see what I mean. If I was to write any more I would add a third sentences that contextualizes the first two sentences. Something along the lines of "At a minimum the judge's ruling raises questions about the Board's competence." Sun Ladder (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I retract my statements about the NPOV violation I misread a part of the policy which lead to a slight confusion on my part. I do think it does need to be expanded upon if it is going to be included; such as the implications and changes that resulted from the judges ruling, Otherwise it does come off as a boarderline UNDUE. An example of changes that were caused by this ruling that could be included would be if they changed how they determined cases. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 23:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately there were no changes made as a result of the ruling (this is Ireland we're talking about). The next nearest thing that I could write about is the effect that the judgment had on the actual development the case was about. So, what if I added the following?:

"The ruling raises questions about Board's impartiality and competence. Plans for the Usk landfill were scrapped." Sun Ladder (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that is fine, going off of the undue guidelines as I understand them the information does not qualify as undue. It is still boarderline undue however I do not see a problem with its inclusion. I'm going to close this on Monday at 2:53pm pacific time(UTC-7) if no one registers any objections before then --Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I made that edit on the article. Should I remove the {{undue|date=April 2013}} too? Sun Ladder (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see that the edits have improved matters. If anything they have made them worse. The section now makes a synthesis without attributing it as an individual's opinion or being able to back it up. Sun Ladder has completely failed to show how the Usk decision has such enormous ramifications for the board based as it was on limited facts. Very few decisions of An Bord Pleanala are struck down by the courts and the Usk case only really concerns the treatment of those cases when they are remitted to the board to be decided again. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 23:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not opinion. It's the direct implication of the judge's ruling:

The decision was found to be biased.

The decision was made by the Board.

Therefore that calls into question the Board's impartiality.

The reasoning for the decision was found to be "unfathomable" and explanations found to be "deeply flawed."

Therefore that calls into question the Board's competence.

That Blue Haired Lawyer can't see the obvious implications is curious. It reinforces the perception of censorship/ not liking Sun Ladder (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm going to pass this onto another DRN volunteer, I am going to be unable to have reliable access to a computer for the next month or so[hence the retired status on my talk page]. My apologies. Cameron11598 (Converse) 17:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Thanks for your help up to now. See you later. Sun Ladder (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Erica Andrews article

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Lightspeedx on 19:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Erica Andrews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lightspeedx (talk · contribs)
• Little green rosetta (talk · contribs)
• Qworty (talk · contribs)
• Coffeepusher (talk · contribs)
• Braveyoda (talk · contribs)
• Absurdist1968 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am requesting for some help on the Erica Andrews article. It has been hijacked by 3 authors who refuse to collaborate or listen to reason. They do not appear to know the material well on this person and have disregarded arguments from me about information to be included in the article that adds depth to it. I realize some information may not be able to be sourced but it is information that is true about the person. An example is that Erica Andrews did appear in some music videos. I know this as I knew her before she passed away. She can even be seen in the music videos albeit a cameo/small role. Unfortunately unlike movies, music videos do not list their full cast. Another example if Erica Andrews appeared on Maury Povich's shows and she can be seen in YouTube videos of the episodes. I have cited according to Wikipedia AV Media guidelines and yet these authors have removed information - thus denying a reader of good information about Erica and her work. I have done extensive research on Erica Andrews and have deep interest in her work and her life. One author blatantly deletes information without regard for how it adds to the article. I have told him/her that if the information requires more citation, then please assist by doing research to find out more and add to the article instead of blatant information deletion which harms the article. None of them wants to listen and have decided somehow that my edits are unworthy no matter even if they are sourced information. Though I have listed citations according to Wikipedia standards which includes citing from a printed book, citing according to Wikipedia's AV Media guidelines, they have deleted information from the article without wanting to discuss with me. They have engaged in an edit war with me. The bulk of the article was authored by me before these 3 editors came upon it. Please assist or contact me to help me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have written on the authors' talk page and the article's talk page to explain my views and to request for them to help by doing more research for content to add instead of rampant destruction. If a source isn't verifiable enough, then help to find more sources instead of deletion. They refused to listen and continue to revert all my changes even though the content is cited. There seems to be no other method but to reach out for dispute resolution and assistance for this article.

How do you think we can help?

Please review article, contact me if you have questions about the content. The article should not be the battleground for an edit war just because these authors have taken a dislike to me. From their talk pages - They seem to have a history of deleting content of other authors without contacting the authors or assisting politely.

Opening comments by Little green rosetta

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Coffee pusher hits the nail on the head below. The sourcing is just not up to standards. What I hope this DR accomplishes is to educate Lightspeedx about what constitutes a RS on wikipedia.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Qworty

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Coffeepusher

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

User:Lightspeedx has been adding information to the Erica Andrews article that is either poorly sourced or no source at all under the claim that it "adds depth" to the article. When I came to the article, due to a call on the biography of living person's noticeboard, major chunks of the article were sourced exclusively to primary sources such as playbills and myspace accounts, which is a violation of WP:BLP sourcing requirements. The three editors named above agree that proper sourcing should be maintained on a BLP, but lightspeedx thinks it is more important to insert information about local shows and cameo appearances than it is to source the article with WP:RS.

Myself and several other editors have tried to work with Lightspeedx concerning proper sourcing, on both personal talk pages as well as the talk page of the article. Based on the amount of discussion regarding this article I think this may be a case of WP:IDHTCoffeepusher (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Braveyoda

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Absurdist1968

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Erica Andrews article discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I'm User:Howicus, a (new) volunteer at DRN. I've read up on the dispute, but I'm not entirely sure what the content issues are. A few questions: Lightspeedx, does this revision of the article [1] contain the information that you have wanted to add? If not, what is this information, and what references will you use to source it? And by the way, please don't accuse other editors of vandalism, as you did here [2], unless it's very obvious. WP:VAND is very clear on what is and is not vandalism, and what Little green rosetta did, isn't. --Howicus (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I notified User:Braveyoda and User:Absurdist1968, both of whom made edits to this page while the editing dispute was ongoing. Howicus (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Note to DRN volunteer: I have added Braveyoda and Absurdist1968 to the list of users involved, and have created an "Opening Comments" section for those users --Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any interest in continuing this or has it gone stale? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as User:Lightspeedx-who's one side of the dispute-hasn't edited since the 1st, I would say it's stale. Maybe we could reopen it if Lightspeedx comes back. Howicus (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Howicus, I haven't forgotten about this article. I haven't edited because every edit I make to the page is deleted immediately by Qworty, Coffeepusher, Little green rosetta. I end up being in some vicious edit war with them which becomes extremely stressful and counter productive. The loser in the situation being the Erica Andrews article. Every suggestion I make, no matter what it is deleted. All requests for Qworty, Coffeepusher, Little green rosetta to work on research to discover new material to add or lends itself to support deletion falls on deaf ears as they are more interested in deletion than collaboration or even listening to reason. They insist that many of Andrews' achievements are not sufficiently cited and to this, I would even argue that other entertainers' Wikipedia articles do not even require THAT much citation for their work. I read Braveyoda's note on your talkpage and totally agree with him/her that Wikipedia articles on other entertainers who are more well-known have required far less citation requests. This is NOT some scientific article we are editing here. It is important to look at other entertainers' bio pages and how their film/theatrical/music videos/pageant/misc achievements are listed. Most are very comprehensive in their listing, i.e. detailing their first movie even if it were a very small role. I cannot but help feel that the Andrews article became a vicious battleground for no reason other than personal dislike of me for whatever reason. I don't even really know why since I had never met those 3 authors prior and I'd been the main author for the Andrews article in that I'd written most of the content there and even have tried to substantiate by verifying with real life people who knew Andrews' career VERY well if what was listed are vicious lies or facts. My motivations for the Andrews article is simple. I respected her and her work tremendously as I know her and know friends of hers. I have tried to substantiate information with as much citation and sources that I can find and have even tried to follow as much as I can of Wikipedia's methods and standards for citation. I have collaborated on many articles with other authors and never once have I ever encountered the animosity I have experienced with these 3 authors (Qworty, Coffeepusher, Little green rosetta). I had even suggested that if there's any information that we can't completely find the source for but we know is factual info that we can tag it as requiring citation and there is no need to delete the information which makes the article very thin and weak. There was even one edit that one of them did where they completely erased/deleted ALL of Andrews' pageant title listings. That was absolutely ludicrous because EVERYONE who knew of Andrews' career knew she EARNED those titles and these titles can be verified to their sources easily and I had even added the source citation for them (a printed book, official pageant Web site's historical section, etc.) That kind of destruction of information was so harmful to the Andrews' article and to Wikipedia at large. When I tried to restore it, they started threatening me saying I was engaging in an edit war, etc. It's really unneeded to take it out on me by using the Andrews article like that. It is because I got very tired of being treated as such by them and because I cared about the Andrews article that I wrote in officially to request for mediation. The situation was getting out of hand and it obviously needed an intervention of another editor such as yourself. I was getting threats from them about banning me off Wikipedia just because I refused to take their crap and spoke up against them and gave them a piece of my mind. I have been on Wikipedia for many years and have never destroyed, never hurt, never vandalized any article. I did not need for my integrity to be questioned by such people who have done nothing to really help the Andrews article beyond using it as a battleground for their egos. Please let me know how you can help author/edit. I'd be happy to help you in any way. I'd be happy to discuss if whatever information should or shouldn't be included and we can collaborate to make the Andrews article to be substantial. I also do not want for my comments here to you Howicus be grounds for yet more nasty remarks from those 3 authors on my talk page or anywhere. Lightspeedx (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

While not every source is bad, many of them are linked to Wikipedia pages and IMDB and they are not reliable. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source or use references that cite Wikipedia. And draghistory.webs.com sounds like a personal site. Same goes for using a Youtube video as a reference, its largely viewed as unreliable. Calling other editors vandals because of it is also not good. You need sources to newspapers, magazines, the TV show itself, anything that meets the definition of reliable source, as outlined at WP:RS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to try to look through the sources in this diff [3]. Lightspeedx, let me know if there are any other sources you wanted to add that aren't in this revision. Howicus (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources in the above diff Alright then, I've looked over the sources in that diff, and frankly, a lot of them don't meet the WP:RS guidelines.

• Source 22 is no good, it only links to Won't Go Home Without You, which doesn't mention Andrews
• 26 doesn't mention Andrews at all, and neither does the episode blurb here [4].
• 27 only links to Maury's front page [5]
• 28 does mention Andrews, [6], but IMDB is user-submitted, so it's not a reliable source. I'm thinking it might be possible to find a better source for this one, though.
• 29 links to The Tyra Banks Show and a 404 error [7] on the Tyra Banks Show website.
• 30 links to the Tyra Banks Show website, but it doesn't mention Andrews [8]
• I have no issue with the "Stage Productions" table, as all of the sources there are used elsewhere in the article, and seem reliable,
• I'm still not sure what to think about sources 31 [9] and 32 [10], but neither seems exceptionally reliable.
• 33 only gives a picture and a caption, with no evidence to back up the claim [11]
• 34, 35, 37, 38, and 42 all go back to the same site, and if you look at the home page here [12], you'll see that all that's required to get info added to the site is to email the person who owns it.
• 36 looks like a blog, but it's kinda hard to tell [13]
• 39 is unreliable, since the site is trying to sell pageant DVDs [14]
• 40 and 41 are YouTube videos, which are never acceptable as sources.

Well, that's it, and there aren't very many reliable sources in there, I'm afraid. Howicus (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but a lengthy caveat: Not every reference has to be from a major newspaper or something. A Youtube Video can be a reliable source provided the publisher is a confirmed channel and has made public a documentary or a interview piece only viewable by said reliable source. All of these fall under the Epic Rap Battles of History page, which uses self published and youtube videos because they are a reliable source for certain contexts... like when the video was released and staff opinions. As a whole, they are in the minority, but identifying what material is reliable is appropriate based on context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note User:Lightspeedx was blocked for one week on the 12th for sockpuppetry, and User:Braveyoda was indeffed as his sockpuppet. Howicus (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Just as a comment, I would like to point out that this feedback is the exact same feedback Lightspeedx/Braveyoda is disputing and has already been discussed on Talk:Erica Andrews, Wikipedia talk:Varifiability page, and the Wikipedia talk:Videos page.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

In light of this bad-faith attempt to force change by Lightspeedx, and the inaction in the following week, I propose that the editors other then Lightspeedx do as they wish with his sourcing and edits. Not much of value can be salvaged from policy reasons, but the record of the shows may be worth keeping an eye on or trying to find better sources. Unless this needs to be open for another reason, I will close this in 24 hours or so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Would we be able to keep this one open at least until User:Lightspeedx's block expires. I hold no ill will and am really hoping that he can come to terms with the sourcing requirements, but a closure while he is (justifiably) blocked would probably be viewed by him as an attempt to steamroll the process and may cause more problems. Now I will not object if you choose otherwise, I think you have more than enough reason to do so. Just my two cents.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with it either way. Right now, I need to go to bed before my brain shuts off. Howicus (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case, it will be left open. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Observing

Right now I have not looked at every single source, but I would like to post here as observing/monitoring this matter due to an interest in learning more about good sourcing req. I do understand that BLP- higher standards is a good starting point, but this person is apparently deceased? I'd also like to see if it is possible to ever stick to the source guidelines,as they are posted in the strictest sense, without having something look like it is full of original research. What I mean by that is allowing info. that is most likely correct, but has insufficient-for-higher-standard-sourcing, like "myspace". Playbills sound like a perfectly good reference to me because that is licensed material from the way that I understand it, and many playbills carry a union mark as well which give them even more credibility imo.24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

(uninvolved) I just want to point out that recently deceased persons are covered under BLP. Andrews died only two months ago. CarrieVS (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In regard to 'allowing info. that is most likely correct, but has insufficient-for-higher-standard-sourcing, like myspace', the answer is "no". We are not journalists, who legitimately use primary sources, instead we are writing an encylopedia, and we should be using high quality secondary sources. In other words, articles, especially biographies of living persons, should use high quality secondary sources, and not rely on myspace. PhilKnight (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Islamism

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by BoogaLouie on 23:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Islamism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved BoogaLouie (talk · contribs) Ahmed 313-326 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Ahmed_313-326 made a few questionable (in my mind) edits of the Islamism article: Deleting citations and not giving an edit summary deleting the word "theodemocracy" from the article. put the question on the talk page here. Not much of a response. Listed dispute at Third Opinion (april 21 or 22). A couple of people responded, one asking ahmed a question (april 22). Ahmed did not respond again on the talk page but in the mean time made another edit deleting a sourced sentence (april 24) very frustrating Have you tried to resolve this previously? talk page and third opinion. Not really any other editors involved or i would have taken the dispute to WP:RfC How do you think we can help? convince Ahmed 313-326 of the importance of explaining his edits, following wikipedia rules -BoogaLouie (talk) Opening comments by Ahmed 313-326 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Islamism discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. It has been a few days, and I am willing to try and assist, but I see that Ahmed 313-326 seems to have a lack of response and discussion. That may pose a problem for the effectiveness of this DRN, but it would not for a RFC/U. He has received the notice yet has not edited for 4 days either. So unless he gets involved, this close as stale. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Well thanks for trying --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:26, 13 May 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.

Francesca Hogi, Survivor Caramoan

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by MouthlessBobcat on 23:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Francesca Hogi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Survivor: Caramoan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MouthlessBobcat (talk · contribs)
• Mr. Gerbear (talk · contribs)
• Whpq (talk · contribs)
• Katanin (talk · contribs)
• Frietjes (talk · contribs)
• Nathan_Johnson (talk · contribs)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs) - Admin of the 1st Deletion review
• The_Bushranger (talk · contribs) - Admin of the 2nd Deletion review

Dispute overview

I created an article of a television personality with the subject being "Francesca Hogi".

It is properly sourced and had good enough reception to warrant an article. It was nominated for deletion twice and wasn't deleted as two seperate admins felt the article was sufficient enough not to be deleted.

However the members behind my back decided to merge the article to a television show that the subject was in. I don't think the article should be merged at all.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried talking to the users yet they claim they gave me a week to have a consensus and they didn't.

They talked about other cast memebrs on the television show not having an article. I told them what's stopping them. If you want something done, do it yourself. Properly source and cite references and I'm sure the article will be fine for publishing.

How do you think we can help?

Understanding my side of the issue and allowing my article to be unredirected.

Opening comments by

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Whpq

My involvement started with the second AFD and continued with the merge discussions which was closed as a merge/redirect. I redirected per consensus and then the reversions started, leading us to this dispute. I believe the course of action should be to simply have an uninvolved administrator review the closure. -- Whpq (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by User:Katanin

I have been heavily involved in these discussions over the past few months and have argued for either the merging or deletion of the article. The reason for the conclusions of "keep" on the first AfDs were not due to the content of the arguments therein, they were because of "Poor discussion quality" and due to a "bad-faith sockvandtrollfest"; essentially due to a large number of sock puppets and ad hominems. I have stated my arguments both on the first AfD and the merge discussion here. I stand by my argument, and believe that this debacle falls under WP:OWN on the part of User:MouthlessBobcat. While I understand that he is proud of his contributions, I still stick by my argument. - Katanin (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Nathan Johnson

• I simply closed the latest RfC as an uninvolved users per a request at WP:AN/RFC. I have no interest in the subject. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Mr. Gerbear

I reverted MouthlessBobcat's edits because consensus had been established in the talk page, and warned him appropriately. I felt that the warning level I gave was appropriate as said user has a history of going against consensus and, obvious from his attitude in many of his comments, not a team player. Afterwards, I received this message on my Talk Page, which was reverted. MouthlessBobcat was then issued a 24-hour block for this personal attack.

MouthlessBobcat's accusations of racism and hate are unfounded. In fact, I had voted to keep the Francesca Hogi article in the second deletion discussion.

I believe MouthlessBobcat has acted and is continuing to act in bad faith. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Francesca Hogi, Survivor Caramoan discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hello, I'm Howicus, a volunteer here at DRN. MouthlessBobcat, could you please explain which user(s) are the other side of the dispute? Howicus (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Howicus, I added every single user involved with this dispute. I also added both users who closed the deletion discussions to keep the article the way it is. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to me that consensus was against you in the merge discussion. Unless there is evidence that the consensus has changed (or Ms. Hogi does something else noteworthy) I don't see any reason to unmerge the article. Howicus (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please excuse me, but have you read the article thoroughly and looked through both deletion discussions? I don't see how the article isn't suitable for publishing. I have stated as to why she is notable outside of the franchise. If I didn't think she was, I wouldn't have taken the time to make the article. 108.13.115.48 (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Signed MouthlessBobcat (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read over the article, as of this revision [15], and I'm not really sure if there are enough reliable sources there. For sure, sources 2 [16] and 8 [17] are just the opinions of fans, so I don't think those sources can be used. A lot of the sources go back to cbs.com, and I can't seem to find a policy saying one thing or the other on that sort of source. I'll keep looking, and maybe I'll ask at the help desk. Howicus (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

CBS is a primary source. Use of primary sources is addressed at WP:GNG which notes that sources "for notability purposes, should be secondary sources". -- Whpq (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

So then my opinion is that there frankly aren't enough secondary sources to establish the notability of the article's subject. Howicus (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's not a problem. I'm willing to do anything to get my article published. It's just the principle. Right now I'm studying for my finals, but hopefully later today I will add and edit better sources and do a sandbox of it. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sourcing is not the only reason that the article was redirected. As noted in the merge proposal, WP:BLP1E is also a consideration. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes you are correct, but you are also forgetting if the article is sourced well and has good enough reception outside of WP:BLP1E, such as season favorite, season winner, or controversial subject, it warrants an article. Like I said, you guys complaining about Russell Hantz not having an article makes me sick. I almost feel like making him a well written one just to make this whole thing fair, and I just might.

I'm just about done with updating the article so this dispute can be ended. Thank you so much for keeping this dispute open a little longer. Just my studies come first. We shouldn't even be here as my original article was fine the way it was but I have updated it and I should post it this afternoon. The latest this evening. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Port Imperial Street Circuit

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Prisonermonkeys on 08:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Port Imperial Street Circuit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs)
• Djflem (talk · contribs)
• The359 (talk · contribs)
• The Bushranger (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue centres on the inclusion of images in the article. There is some debate between editors as to their value to the article, and whether or not a consensus has been acheived.

Those in favour of including the images claim that they are needed because they show readers where the circuit is located, and that they provide a visual representation of the circuit environment.

Those against including the images claim that they do not actually show the circuit, since nothing has actually been built yet, and that building on from this, there is no evidence supplied to substantiate the claim that the images show the location of the circuit.

Furthermore, there is dispute over whether a consensus has been acheived, and what that consensus is - each side claims that a consensus has been reached, that that consensus is in their favour, that the other party is operating on a false assumption, and have been editing the article accordingly to the point of edit-warring.

There is a third image on the page, showing the circuit layout over the streets of New Jersey that it will use. This image is not being debated, as its merit has not been question, but rather, has been accepted as a useful image.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Users have attempted to resolve the dispute on the talk page, but exist in a stalemate.

How do you think we can help?

By offering some additional voices to the argument to try and reach a consensus.

Opening comments by Djflem

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by The359

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by The Bushranger

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

• As noted, I believe that the images add value to the article, but I have no problems with them being removed if that is the consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Port Imperial Street Circuit discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'll be glad to take the case. I know we do not have opening comments from both sides, but I have seen the page in question and the read the talk page to get feel for the issue. I'd like to open with a discussion on exactly how everyone feels about each of the images.

• Port Imperial Street Circuit, in the nav box, the outline of the circuit.
• Picture of the site of circuit overlooking Hudson Waterfront with New York and Jersey City skylines.
• Map overlay of the circuit's location on the city streets of Weehawken and West New York.
• View to the ferry terminal at the start/finish line shown as point #1 on map

An immediate concern comes to me on that last picture, which can be addressed by a simple cropping of the bottom half which removes the staircase. So please consider that option when you respond. Opening comments can still be filled in if you wish, so I can get a better perspective of your individual stances. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take you up on that offer.

Firstly, I have no issue with the image in the navbox. Every single page on Formula 1 racing circuits have their own image in a navbox. Examples include Silverstone Circuit, Hungaroring, Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Autodromo Nazionale Monza and so on.

The picture of the site overlooking the Hudson Waterfront is one of the images that I really have an issue with. My problem is that this is an article about a racing circuit, and that the race will take place on public roads, but the imge doesn't actually show any roads. I have since changed it to be an image of the ferry terminal, which will be adjacent to the start/finish line.

I also have issues with the image of the staircase, primarily because it focuses on the staircase. I don't think that cropping it out is really an option, though, because it's not a particularly great photo to begin with, and also because it will be difficult to explain precisely what the reader is looking at; when finished, the circuit will use the two-lane road in front of the terminal and an undeveloped part of the waterfront that is partially cut out by the photo. I have since changed the caption, because the caption was wrong; point #1 on the map does not refer to the ferry terminal, but to the first corner of the circuit.

I don't have any problems with the map overlay of the circuit. Because the circuit will be on public roads, this image shows exactly which roads will be used. However, I don't think it is that big a deal if the image is removed - other pages for temporary street circuits (such as Circuit de Monaco and Marina Bay Street Circuit) don't show images such as these, while others (namely the Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit and Valencia Street Circuit) do. It's an inconsistency that should be addressed, but it's an issue for the Formula 1 WikiProject to address.

In summary, since the circuit is specifically being created for Formula 1 racing, then the priority should be in keeping the article consistent with the article for other Formula 1 circuits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, just need the other editors to weigh in here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

corporation, joint-stock company, shareholder, share, finance, corporate finance, and others

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Sigiheri on 20:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Joint-stock company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shareholder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Share (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Finance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Corporate finance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• And others (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sigiheri (talk · contribs)
• Discospinster (talk · contribs)
• Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk · contribs)
• Srnec (talk · contribs)
• Legacypac (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Corporations are legally NOT the shareholders. I have posted this on TALK and provided numerous references. Unfortunately, various users revert my edits that I make, which I make to avoided insinuating that shareholders are owners. I have asked them all to discuss on the TALK page, but they usually do not do it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to ask Admin on my TALK page for help and instead I was eventually blocked. Then, after the block, admin told me about this page.

How do you think we can help?

You can stop people from generally referring to shareholders as owners. I have made this same argument several times in the past. Admin archives these arguments and hides them away forever, making it impossible to simply refer to the argument. The result is that I must redo the whole argument every year or so.

Opening comments by Discospinster

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Blue-Haired Lawyer

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Srnec

I do not enjoy participating in this side of Wikipedia.

Sigiheri doesn't know how to edit or discuss at Wikipedia. Replacing reliably sourced material with contrary reliably sourced material is not the right way. Opening a discussion when you've been reverted by multiple editors and then restoring your text again and again claiming that the others must discuss with you is not the normal procedure. His point of view is in fact valid and there are reliable sources that back him up. He should add them appropriately to highlight to readers that an intellectual debate exists on the status of shareholders and the nature of ownership.

If you want to know why his assertions are extremely tendentious, see this and this (GoogleScholar searches). Overwhelmingly, reliable sources just plain assume that shareholders are owners. We have a right to do the same—not to suppress contrary opinions, if they are reliably sourced, but to build upon the basic definition of the shareholder as owner. Srnec (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Legacypac

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

The editor is putting in junk that can not be sourced and deleting basic corporate law facts that are so basic they do not even need to be sourced. His sources do not agree with his POV. Further, he has been blocked for edit warring and I just nominated him for another block.

If shareholder ownership is such a "basic fact" why does contemporary legal scholarship insist that shareholders are NOT generally the owners? I have numerous cites while this person, Legacypac, has ZERO. His only evidence that he is right is that he believes it. Obviously, Legacypak does not understand that statements require more than personal beliefs for them to be facts.Sigiheri (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments might be taken more seriously if your sources did not completely disagree with you. No one needs to justify their position if you can't justify your minority view. Legacypac (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this action can be closed now that the proposer (or whatever they are called here) has been blocked for edit warring on the topic? Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

corporation, joint-stock company, shareholder, share, finance, corporate finance, and others discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer Notes: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, though I am a regular volunteer here, I'm not opening or taking this for discussion, just making a couple of notes:

• I have notified the participants other than the listing editor as our notification bot is down at this time, apparently.
• We cannot stop anyone from doing anything. All we can do here is to try to help you work our your disagreements through discussion and neutral advice and comments.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

More Volunteer Notes:

• Please do not begin discussion before a DRN volunteer has opened the case for discussion.
• Please do not post in other editors' opening comments sections. All discussion should go in this section (but see my last point, above).
• If a primary participant were blocked indefinitely we might close this request, but a short block will not generally result in closure.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

talk:fractal antenna

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Caffemac on 04:01, 14 May 2013 (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 Talk:Fractal antenna (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Caffemac (talk · contribs) 96.237.171.111 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Some individual has been editing the talk page of other contributors. My comment was de-faced as well. Have you tried to resolve this previously? He kept editing and deleting other's comment. How do you think we can help? Please take appropriate actions. Opening comments by 96.237.171.111 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. talk:fractal antenna discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. 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.

Homeopathy

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Cjwilky on 19:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Cjwilky (talk · contribs)
• Zad68 (talk · contribs)
• Brunton (talk · contribs)
• JoelWhy (talk · contribs)
• TippyGoomba (talk · contribs)
• LeadSongDog (talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
• Daffydavid (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A reference is being used to support the idea of cancer being a risk of using homeopathy. The study referred to discusses complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) which specifically includes homeopathy but its clear in the study that the authors claim CAM in general could lead to increased risk of cancer. They don't specify the use of homeopathy can increase the risk of cancer. Whilst we can guess or theorise that this may be the case, that is not said anywhere in the study. Wikipedia:No original research says analysis of sources is not acceptable. I claim that to say the use of homeopathy increases risk of cancer from this source can only be from analysis of the study, ie original research. Also, as this source doesn't specify the effects of using homeopathy and only generalises under the CAM umbrella, it is a study that relates to Alternative medicine not Homeopathy, and so should be moved to the relevant article, not used in homeopathy. All the other editors listed believe it is valid to make the analysis/assumption that the use of homeopathy on its own can lead to cancer as well as believe that this study is a clear study relating to homeopathy by itself.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing on the talk page including pointing out specific wiki policies.

How do you think we can help?

By helping clarify the wiki policy in this situation. A consensus is unlikely to happen without external help as this is an issue between me holding one opinion and several other eds who hold another.

Opening comments by Zad68

I think I'm going to have to apologize to Cjwilky and the other editors involved in this DRN. Although the explanation given in the Dispute overview is a bit unclear and does not identify the issue I am bringing up here, and I agree with the other editors in being confused about the objections to having the article state "homeopathy causes cancer" when it does not, I now agree with the end result of the edit suggested: In sentence in the 5th paragraph in the lead, source PMID 12974558 (Malik) should be removed along with the phrase "such as cancer", and Malik can also be removed from the "On clinical grounds, patients who choose to use homeopathy in preference to normal medicine..." sentence as well (no article prose change needed there). I said on the Talk page I thought Malik was a review article and I was wrong, it's not, it's a small 2003 prospective primary study. It's sometimes OK to use the background sections of primary studies but I don't think that's OK here: We have PMID 17285788 (Altunc), a recent systematic review article and a high-quality secondary source, which doesn't appear to use that primary study, and that casts doubt on the quality of its results. I don't think Malik is necessary as we have Altunc, and the remaining sources don't support "such as cancer" (and it's not necessary to mention "cancer" either as it's just an example). Zad68 02:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Brunton

The disputed statement in the article does not say "that the use of homeopathy on its own can lead to cancer"; it says: "Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer." This statement is adequately supported by the sources used. I'm not sure that there is much of a dispute here; it seems to be more a single editor disagreeing with every other editor so far involved in the discussion (who they describe as "the skeptic gang" and "signed up Skeptics ") based, apparently, on a misunderstanding of what the disputed wording actually says. Brunton (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by JoelWhy

First of all NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT HOMEOPATHY IS A CANCER RISK! The article (and the source) explain that people who use homeopathy may "risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer." (i.e. Had they gone to a doctor immediately rather than first seeking diagnosis/treatment from a homeopath, they may have been properly diagnosed sooner.)

The sourced article discusses Complimentary and Alternative medicine (CAM). Homeopathy is a type of CAM. Moreover, the article specifically says that 71% of the subjects in the study were using homeopathy. This is not synthesis. It's directly on point. JoelWhy?(talk) 20:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

My poor phrasing, it is about the diagnosis issue as you say, but could you please quote where in the study it says what you claim in your first para? I don't see that. Cjwilky (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not respond to this question at this time, see my comments below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Opening comments by TippyGoomba

Cjwilky opens with the statement:

A reference is being used to support the idea of cancer being a risk of using homeopathy.

He objects to the following sentence in the article:

Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer.

The claim that cancer is a risk of using homeopathy is a gross misrepresentation of what the article says. From what I gather, this is his only objection. The objection is addressed by the explanation that he misunderstands the difference between something causing cancer and something delaying cancer treatment. The sentence does even imply that the homeopathy preceded the cancer, a prerequisite for the causal relation that Cjwilky is imagining. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by LeadSongDog

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Alexbrn

I have checked the source and am happy it properly supports what WP says. I don't really get what this dispute is about, since the complaint seems to bear no relation to what the texts are actually stating. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Daffydavid

The dispute opened here is an inaccurate description of the article and the disputed material. I cannot see how it has been represented as CAM leads to an increase in cancer. They are clearly stating - " Breast cancer patients in Pakistan frequently (53%) delay seeking medical advice. Antecedent practice of CAM is widespread and a common underlying reason. The delay results in significant worsening of the disease process." They further state that the CAM used 70% of the time was homeopathy. CJ's argument is the same as arguing that a study on murder weapons states that 70% of the time guns are used but since the study title is "murder weapons" we shouldn't use it in an article on guns.--Daffydavid (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by AndyTheGrump (not listed above)

It appears that Cjwilky has completely failed to understand what the source in question claims: it does not suggest that CAM increases the risk of getting cancer. Could I suggest that perhaps Cjwilky should read the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The article and the skeptics here claim "Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer." My bad phrasing. Its about CAM and cancer nevertheless. Cjwilky (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not respond to this comment at this time, see my comments below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Comment by Gaijin42 (not listed above)

I am uninvolved, and have come across this dispute from this posting. The phrases in the article are absolutely adequately sourced by the study. Nobody is attempting to insert a claim that homeopathy causes cancer. The text is that those who delay standard medical treatment of cancer, and instead use CAM (including homeopathy) have worse outcomes. This is directly stated in the study. Frankly CJwilky has a really bad case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT as there is a clear consensus from other editors that the statements are adequately sourced. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Homeopathy discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not "taking" or opening this matter for discussion at this point in time, but just want to make a couple of comments:

• Please do not commence discussion of this matter until a volunteer has opened this case for discussion.
• Please do not post comments to any other editors' opening comments space above. All discussion (once discussion has been opened) should go in this section, not above.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'll be glad to take this case and I believe that we should be able to resolve this issue in an amicable way to everyone's satisfaction. I would like to request that comments are posted below, or in response to this message, just to keep things tidy and easy to read for anyone else who wants to help out. From reading over the talk page and the opening statements, there appears to be a bit of an issue with what the provided reference is actually stating and it seems the context may have been misunderstood in some way. To clarify the current status of the dispute, as per the talk page and here:

• The reference here is disputed (Please correct me if I'm wrong) and
• the general editorial consensus is that the source is valid, and should not be removed.

I would like to open the discussion by asking Cjwilky why they believe the source states about cancer being a risk of using homeopathy and why they believe it should be removed. + Crashdoom ^Talk 01:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)