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
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Talk:Robert (doll)#Suggested_Lead_Edit_v4	Closed	Gabriellemcnell (t)	1 days, 4 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	12 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	12 hours
Sales data dispute on Chris Brown article	New	Instantwatym (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	11 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	11 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 11:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Translations of The Lord of the Rings

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Prosfilaes on 21:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Translations of The Lord of the Rings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Prosfilaes (talk · contribs)
• 178.49.18.203 (talk · contribs)
• 145.226.30.43 (talk · contribs)
• Butsuri (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Esperanto translation is currently included in Translations of The Lord of the Rings. User:178.49.18.203 is trying to remove it on the grounds that it's unauthorized. That's completely unproven; they've offered not a shred of evidence that would establish that. Even if it is, it's notable enough to be in the article. I'd note the Persian translation, published as it is in a country that does not have copyright relations with the rest of the world, is also likely unauthorized. That doesn't stop it from being the go-to translation for thousands of Iranians.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We've had long discussion on the talk page and many reverts on the article page.

How do you think we can help?

Stop the edit war.

Opening comments by 178.49.18.203

About authorization: I know no acknowledgments from either publisher or estate about authorizing the Esperanto translation. The book itself has no ISBN, no attributions, was published by a small editorial.

Let people translate things for personal use, and print them on demand, but let's not ascribe to them encyclopedic notability. LotR is notable, Auld is notable, but notability isn't inherited automatically by his bootleg translation.

There is a tendency amongst Esperantists to create informational presence beyond statistical limits. WP is not a tool for that, I hope. 178.49.18.203 (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 145.226.30.43

The editor has a history of hobbyhorse editing on Esperanto-related articles (like here); in this case he originally deleted the mention of the Esperanto translation--and only the Esperanto translation--calling it a "fake" and a "hoax". After being forced to concede that this was not the case (six chapters are even available online), he has now seized on it being "unauthorized", with no evidence, and again targeting only the Esperanto translation with this accusation, in spite of many others being published without ISBN and having no citations to prove their existence.

The remainder of my arguments can be found on the talk page. This is a work that has gone through two editions, in a rare language, making its importance relative to the larger body of literature arguably more significant than that of most translations listed on the page (and its second printing made headlines in the Esperanto press). --145.226.30.43 (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Butsuri

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.

Translations of The Lord of the Rings 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 thehistorian10, self-assigned to mediate on your case. I'm going to wait until ALL parties have made opening statements, otherwise I will probably close the case as a non-starter. What I don't know at the moment is what you actually want me to do. There is a specific question above that asks what you want done about this dispute. Until the filing party answers this question, we cannot proceed any further.

--The Historian (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am also a regular volunteer here at DRN. I'm ordinarily a strong proponent of the idea that a request here ought to be closed unless all significant participants in the discussion at the article weigh in here. But I'm not so sure that Butsuri is a significant participant. S/he only made one comment in that extensive discussion and all her/his edits to the article itself are unrelated to the issue here. Moreover, s/he has not edited Wikipedia at all since June 12. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So, I see the case is closed; what was the resolution? To keep the article as it stands now (with the translation included), presumably? --145.226.30.44 (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Verdia25 on 14:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Azerbaijani people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Verdia25 (talk · contribs)
• Samaksasanian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue lies in the first sentence of the description of the page. I think the ethnic group should be called 'Turkic-speaking people', while the other person thinks that they should be called 'Turkic people'.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Trying to discus and solve this matter on the Talk:Azerbaijani people page. I also reported the matter on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page, from which I got a response that it should be discussed on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I am not sure. I tried to discus the matter on the talk page but the other person did not go against my counterarguments. I believe it would be fair if it would be changed to the former description (Turkic-speaking people) if he does not have anything to say to my counterarguments.

Opening comments by Samaksasanian

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.

this user complained me and User:Qara xan in edit warring‎ page: in 5 June 2013 [1] and 13 June 2013 [2] But admins Did not accept Complaint him. and please Contributions User:Verdia25→ [3] 40 edit and all of the edit is vandalizing and Complaints and conflicts

I edit by valid Sources, my Sources is a Encyclopædia Britannica → Azerbaijani People Explained → Azerbaijani, any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran- I explained Talk:Azerbaijani people but this User Does not accept Azerbaijani People is a Turkic people BUT User:Verdia25 say Azerbaijani People is Turkic Speaking people.

I'm editing the source by a Encyclopædia Britannica→ Azerbaijani People--So Azerbaijani people is a Turkic people and Azerbaijani Language from Turkic languages--Thanks--Samək^Talk 18:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What ethnic group Azerbaijani people? Azerbaijani People are Oghuz Turks-- all of the People in the World Come from Of a branch.

Now I have a question, Azerbaijani People is?

1. Turkic people ??
2. Iranian People ??
3. Peoples of the Caucasus ??
4. NOW, Right now, Up now Any user who can read here, say What ethnic group Azerbaijani people????

I Have a very valid sources and added Azerbaijanis People article;→

in the end→ say to me Azerbaijani People is a Turkic people?? Or Iranian People ?? Or Peoples of the Caucasus ??--Samək^Talk 13:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people 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 am thehistorian10", a volunteer here. Thanks for the opening statements - they are of use. I think we can sort this dispute rather quickly. First, could Samaksasanian please answer this question: Is the Encyclopedia Britannica your ONLY source in this article, or do you use others with the Encyclopedia being your primary source? --The Historian (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am also a regular editor here at DRN. The dispute over whether the lede of this article should say "Turkic", "Turkic-speaking", or simply "ethnic group", and what part Encyclopedia Britannica should play as a source in the article for this issue and for other issues, goes back to at least 2006 and involves many, probably dozens, of editors. Discussion of those subjects can be found in all 9 of the talk page archive pages for the article. Resolution of the dispute between just these two editors will be futile, as new participants in the debate will merely come along tomorrow. I am of the opinion that the only acceptable way to resolve this so as to bring stability to the article on, at least, this point is via request for comments. If a RFC closes with a clear consensus as to how this should be worked out (which, admittedly, is anything but certain), then at least a new clear consensus will have to be formed in order to change it in the future. Resolving disputes between the editors du jour is merely assisting axes to be ground further. I recommend that this be closed in favor of a RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

First of, thank you for your comments! I hoped that the dispute would be solved, as this was my third report on this matter. The first two reports were on page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. The first report was ignored and in the second one I was asked to resolve this in the 'talk page' which I already tried. I read the 'request for comments' page but I did not quite understand what I should do (English is by the way not my first language). Should I make a similar report like I did here on the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board? Thank you. Verdia25 (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite agree that this would be suitable for RFC, especially since you have already tried there, so I'm going to keep it open here. Now I've seen Samaksanian's response to my question (I'd prefer that he posted it in the "discussion"), I'd like to ask the same question to Verdia25 - what sources do you use to say that Azeris are not Turkic? By the way, Samaksanian, other than merely citing books, what specific pages do you use from those books? Also, whilst I'm thinking about it, what are the "agreed facts" - that is, what do the Parties agree on? Obviously, if parties agree on quite a lot, this means that our work here won't take too long, and if there is no agreeement whatsoever, this will make this process longer than necessary. It is therefore in Parties' interests to provide information on any agreements between them that are relevant to this dispute. --The Historian (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not have any sources that I used to say that they are not Turkic. I think that the original description used prior to May 31st was better because the new one, Turkic people, could be confusing to some people that the Azerbaijani are of Turkic origin, while in the wikipedia article it is state that they are of mixed origin. With the description 'Turkic speaking people' it is clear to all readers that they speak a Turkic language. I think Samaksanian and me both agree that the Azari language that Azerbaijani speak is, as stated on wikipedia, a language of the Turkic language family. To Samaksasanian, this isn't really a discussion on whether they are Turkic, Iranian or Caucasus people. It is on whether the description 'Turkic people' or 'Turkic speaking people' should be used. Verdia25 (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

All of the Ethnic groups Included total Ethnic groups. only write one total Ethnic groups. Personal Argument Prohibited--Samək^Talk 12:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on the fact that Samaksasanian is now not making sense, and since the entire dispute is about whether or not the Azeri people are Turkic speaking peoples, I think I know how we can go about resolving this. Azerbaijani language states that the "language family" of Azeri is "Turkic". The Turkic languages page states that Azeri is descended from the Weset Oghuz branch of Turkic. Azerbaijan states that the official language of Azerbaijan is Azeri, and, the articles above show that it is descended from the Turkic family. So, I think that the Azeris are Turkic speaking, and User:Verdia25 is correct in his primary assertion.

--The Historian (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Azerbaijani people is a Turkic people and Azerbaijani Language from Turkic languages. My Persian countrymen in Iran are Persian People is a Iranian People and Persian Language from Iranian languages.Samək^Talk 18:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

They may be Turkic people I don't deny that, but the original description 'Turkic speaking people' was valid too and I don't think it was needed to change it. The problem with the description 'Turkic people' is that it could be confusing to some people, as if the origin or ethnicity may be Turkic, while it is only the Azerbaijani's language that belongs to the Turkic language family; origin and ethnicity is mixed. There won't be any confusion if it would be 'Turkic speaking people'.Verdia25 (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, Personal Argument Prohibited-Samək^Talk 18:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg

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

Filed by EyeTruth on 20:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• EyeTruth (talk · contribs)
• Gunbirddriver (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The term "blitzkrieg" has been present in the article for as long as possible. Starting in 2009, certain editors suggested that "blitzkrieg" should be excluded from the article. Such opinions got nowhere due to lack of reliable sources to support them. These were long before I made my first edit in the article. Not long ago, an editor began flushing out blitzkrieg from the article. I felt it wasn't too bad if he was just trying to tone its usage down. But recently, the editor decided to flush out the last instance of Blitzkrieg from the article. I opposed it and pointed out that there are three sources (cited in the article) that explicitly support the usage of the term in that very paragraph – i.e. the Citadel plan exemplified blitzkrieg. Note that this refers to just the intention of Citadel. The actual campaign turned out to be a crawl. The editor returned with the backup of three other editors and challenged the inclusion of the term in the article. I requested that they should bring forward the sources that claim that the Citadel plan didn't envision a blitzkrieg operation. Not a single source could be produced. However, they pointed out several other sources never called it a blitzkrieg despite dealing with Citadel. This is true. But I told them that silence on a subject doesn't translate to disapproval or approval for the subject. But they insisted that since the campaign, anyways, turned out not to be a blitzkrieg irrespective of whatever the intentions were, there was enough reason to completely exclude the term from the article. They concluded that they have the majority in editor consensus and therefore went ahead to flush out the term. I pointed out that we do not have any sources disputing this; we have sources supporting it; and all we have are some editors disputing it; therefore, when all said and done, there is not much justification for this consensus reached by the three editors. No one budged.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion (over 70 KB of readable prose) to clarify all the underlying rationale behind the opinions of the different parties.

How do you think we can help?

Opening comments by Gunbirddriver

The events are mischaracterized in EyeTruth’s summary.

The main issue is to write the article succinctly and in a manner which clearly communicates the events to the reader. The term “blitzkrieg” was not used by the German military to describe their operational methods, and is a term that is poorly defined and misunderstood. Further, the term does not match the battle in either its planning or execution.

The article was in the process of being re-worked with three editors (Sturmvogel 66, EyeTruth and myself) being the primary parties involved in the process. EyeTruth inserted into the article the phrase:

Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel), was to be a classic blitzkrieg, eschewing attrition for a swift and efficient strike, featuring a double envelopment with pincers originating from the faces of the salient and directed at Kursk which would surround the majority of the Soviet defenders and seal off the salient

As shown here. The description offered above does not describe classic Blitzkrieg warfare. This was removed in a rewrite. EyeTruth then inserted it again here.

This was reverted and he was told to start a discussion about it. He then reverted again here, claiming that no one had started the discussion topic for him. It was pointed out to him that the format is Bold Edit, Revert and Discuss, with the onus being on him to initiate the discussion. The discussion was entered into to the tune of about 100 kilobyte. Four editors (Sturmvogel 66, Diannaa, Herostratus and myself) weighed in saying they were opposed to the inclusion of the term. They provided various reasons and sources. All of these were rejected out of hand by EyeTruth, who then on his own recognizance and without the support of any other editor inserted the phrase into the text again here. Another 100 kilobytes of discussion ensued, and editor Binksternet removed the phrase. EyeTruth then reverted again here, which Binkersternet reverted, and EyeTruth reverted again here, which had to be reverted back by Sturmvogel 66. I submitted a complaint against EyeTruth for tendentious editing here. It was at this point that EyeTruth submitted this topic for discussion here at Dispute resolution. He is a tad late for this step, and none of the other editors have softened in their opinion on the matter. If anything, the experience has hardened them into more strongly wishing to oppose.

It would appear EyeTruth is using this forum to again assert his opinion. I doubt he has any real interest in resolving anything, unless it is resolved to align with his own views. It’s a sad affair, and most of us are quite tired of it.Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion does not take place in opening comments. They are for the opening comment of the named user only. Discuss in the appropriate section below.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Woow... take it easy there. You didn't even inform me that you submitted a complaint. I'm just knowing about this now. And you're really making this into your personal war. Also, what I described above is exactly as it happened. Do you mind pointing out any statement I made in the above description that is false? Also in your post above, you categorically failed to mention that none of you have provided a single sources to support your contention for the inclusion of the term.EyeTruth (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Really? You don’t recall this: User talk:EyeTruth#Problems_working_on_the_Battle_of_Kursk_page.? What? That was a notification from 18 June for a complaint you posted the same day. WTH. You posted another one on 1 July and even up till now have not notified me. What kind of twisted game are you trying to play here? You're making this more and more too personal, which is not a good idea. But whatever, it's no big deal. Let's no clog up this discussion with this side story.EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC) It's all part of the same complaint. I asked the administrators how to add to the initial complaint and they instructed me to make a new entry. You were notified that a complaint was filed on June 18th. A result from that complaint is still pending. It is hard to see how you could consider yourself an injured party, when the notice was placed directly on your talk page. What more would you expect me to do, notify you that I am updating the complaint? That's a bit much, don't you think? Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC) And I'm supposed to know about this "new entry" (a new section) you created on some noticeboard? Oh yeah, I forgot, I know everything. Psssshh. So much BS. EyeTruth (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC) You are again mischaracterizing events. How do you expect people to consider anything that you are saying to be valid when your mischaracterizations are shown to be false? Look, it’s nothing personal on my part, I just want to get on with improving the article. That’s what most of the editors want. Here is what you said on my talk page back in the middle of May: Unless you mean that we should avoid the use of the "Blitzkrieg" altogether, to give way for more universally acceptable phrases? If that is the case, then I won't object since it seems some readers still get nonplussed at the use of "Blitzkrieg" in such a way, even though I think it is not necessary and could be tedious making all the changes. EyeTruth (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, removing the term "Blitzkrieg" from the article is a good idea, for the reasons I mentioned above. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Heads up, those "some readers" is you. Also you conveniently forgot to include the sentence that followed: "But if you mean wholly eliminating any passage in the article with "Blitzkrieg", then I doubt anyone will consider such a crusade acceptable." I believe the agreement I reached for is crystal-clear. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Back in May you insisted on eliminating the term. You didn't even give any legit reasons besides: "Soviet plans and preparations [section] should not include a paragraph about how the "Blitzkrieg" had never been stopped before. I removed that paragraph because it was misleading in content and misplaced in the article." EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Your main reason was that things were all over the place in the article. On those grounds, I cut you a slack back then. But that was before I realized a lot more about your modus operandi. I made that clear in the my post dated 01:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC) on Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Seems you did not really mean what you told me. Look, an inordinate amount of the editors' time has been burned up on this question, and they find it to be unproductive. For the proof just look at your own talk page. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I only know of Sturmvogel on my talkpage. I already told you that you may not want to keep referring to yourself as "other editors" or "inordinate amount of the editors" as you always often do. I've said it before. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC) PS. Also Diannaa only opposed its inclusion only because she couldn't verify that it was in the cited sources. Obviously, it is in the cited sources, but she never returned to tell us whether she was able to verify it. EyeTruth (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Here is what Diannaa said: I agree that the Battle of Kursk does not fit the usual definition of Blitzkreig (23:39, 17 June 2013).Gunbirddriver (talk) But you also conveniently forgot to also add her final statement: "You are wrong when you say we have to prove that it was not Blitzkreig or it stays in. You are the one who wants to add the content, so you are the one who has to defend its addition. We can't use the term Blitzkreig to describe the German attack unless at least one of the sources uses the term." And to begin with, Dianna didn't have it together during that discussion, as we all know her claim that none of the cited sources supported the inclusion of the term is blatantly false. Unfortunately, she never returned to conclude what she started. At any rate, we had three secondary sources supporting its inclusion back then, but we now have about 6 sources supporting it thanks to Binksternet. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC) She then asked for the sourcing materials. You are mischaracterizing what others are saying, and not in an accidental fashion, but always in a manner that would seem to support your own position. People do not like that. It is unlikely that you will be able to gain their support when you treat them in this poor fashion. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC) You have still categorically failed to point out any incorrect statement in the description I submitted. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC) No, you just refuse to recognize them. The entire characterization you offered was false from beginning to end. How then can we help you see the problem? I do not entirely understand the issue with you, but I know that you will see this response as another attack against you personally, and a marker that I have some interest in specifically opposing you. That has been the case all along. Really, I don't want anything to do with you. It is of little use trying to discuss things with you, as you do not seem have the capacity to honestly converse and apparently have very little ability to view things from another person's perspective. I have bent over backward and patiently tried to explain things to you. I cannot further help you resolve the issue. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC) OK then, it should be very simple for you to point out just one false statement in the description. If you can't, then you're simply grasping at straws. I doubt there is anybody who won't be able to see through it. EyeTruth (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Binksternet

Blitzkrieg is a difficult-enough topic to define, with multiple observers describing it in various ways. Classic blitzkrieg is exemplified by Germany's lightning invasion of France in 1940, the pushing of the British to Dunkirk, and the initial attack on the Soviet Union in 1941. Other than these examples which are agreed upon by all observers, the concept is too muddled and debated to be applied specifically to Kursk as a "classic blitzkrieg" in the manner preferred by EyeTruth.

Instead, most of those historians who describe Kursk as some form of blitzkrieg say that it was a failed blitzkrieg, not a classic example. In M.K. Barbier's Kursk 1943, Barbier says on page 10 that the Germans tried blitzkrieg tactics in Poland in 1939; a position with few historian supporters. Barbier then says that Kursk was intended to be blitzkrieg by the Germans but it failed because the Soviets had found the proper defense for it. Hedley Paul Willmott writes in The Great Crusade, page 300, that Kursk was where the blitzkrieg myth was broken because of the effective Soviet defense in depth. Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson say the same thing in Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis, page xi. Even Glantz who is EyeTruth's main source describes Kursk as the death of blitzkrieg. Kursk cannot be called "classic blitzkrieg". Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the point. It was intended to be another blitzkrieg but it failed epically. Obviously Citadel was a crawl. It was no blitzkrieg, but it was expected to be. Many army-level (and above) orders were all talking of shattering the soviet defenders in one, two or three days, and achieve operational freedom. Starting from day one of the offensive, those expectation and dreams were shattered. EyeTruth (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sturmvogel 66

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:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg 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 am Smileguy91, a DRN volunteer. Consensus has been reached, but there is WP:CCC. Hopefully a wider consensus can be reached with this DRN post. smileguy91^talk 22:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I what to know whether consensus is decided by number of editors voting for a motion or is it by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy? I'm not very old on here. And what I read in the policies about consensus seem to differ a lot from what I hear from other editors. So I would really want to know what is the "unspoken" norm. EyeTruth (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A bit of both, votes alone dont constitute consensus, especially when just in the form of a simple majority (not well over 50%). -- Nbound (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. So number of votes does matter to an extent. Thanks. Everyone seemed to be playing along that unspoken norm even though the policy never explicitly said so. I've been wondering ever since. EyeTruth (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

At first I was considering suggesting that this be moved to WP:RFC, since it's not really a dispute, per se, but now I believe it belongs here. smileguy91^talk 14:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My personal — and I emphasize that this is just personal — quick rule of thumb for consensus is 3 to 1 if the 3 have an overwhelming, no-one-could-reasonably-disagree argument, 4 to 1 with a somewhat weaker but still pretty strong argument, and 5 to 1 with an argument which is merely reasonable, and in each case that's if the 1 has a merely reasonable argument. If the 1 has a strong or very strong argument, higher ratios are required. Theoretically, if the 1 has one of those overwhelming, no-one-could-reasonably-disagree arguments then the number on the other side shouldn't make any difference, but you have to then ask whether if his argument is so great why isn't anyone else buying it. Note that this analysis only applies when there is no solution mandated by policy. When policy mandates a solution, policy wins, unless a local exception is established, but that also has to be done by consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (a DRN volunteer)

Your personal rule of thumb is judicious and fair IMO. I have another question about the voting thing. If the minority editors has several reputable secondary sources that explicitly support their side of the argument, will those sources also be counted each as one vote? EyeTruth (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Acupuncture

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mallexikon on 02:09, 3 July 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 Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mallexikon (talk · contribs) Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs) TippyGoomba (talk · contribs) Herbxue (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have proposed to change the first lede sentence to "Acupuncture is a collection of alternative medical procedures". This has been met with multiple ojections, the first one being that this statement has to be backed up by multiple sources meeting the standards of MEDRS. As soon as I have contributed those sources, the objection was changed to the statement being ambiguous, and the term "alternative medical" not literally being found in the sources. After these objections were addressed, the objection changed to the statement being superfluous. Have you tried to resolve this previously? 1.) Back the intended statement up with MEDRS 2.) Avoid ambiguity by wikilinking the term in question: alternative medical procedure (as opposed to alternative medical procedure) How do you think we can help? Give NPOV on whether the MEDRS' statements of "Acupuncture is one of the oldest, most commonly used medical procedures..." (Clinical guideline source), "Acupuncture is ... a complementary or alternative medicine.." (NHS source) and "Acupuncture is one of the oldest and most commonly used forms of traditional medicine... " (NIH source) are backing up my intended sentence ("Acupuncture is a collection of alternative medical procedures ...") Opening comments by Dominus Vobisu Like Tippy, still waiting for solid sourcing. Right now, all we have is synthesis based on patching together different sources. Furthermore, the statement is redundant and adds nothing to the article. I see no point in continuing this deadhorse argument here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by TippyGoomba This pretty much covers it. I'd still be interested to see some sources, I love being surprised. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Herbxue The proposed edit is justified by common sense alone as it is accurate and reasonable. Beyond that, Mallexikon has worked towards consensus by qualifying the sourced "medical procedure" as "alternative medical procedure" and has provided several reliable sources. Herbxue (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Acupuncture 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 DRN volunteer, that alone confers no special powers and I am another opinion, I cannot make binding decisions. What we strive to do here in most cases is to find an outcome that is acceptable to both parties (assuming their arguments are valid). It may not be an outcome you love, but hopefully we can find one that all involved can live with. How about we just change the sentence, and we instead state that "Acupunture is a form of alternative medicine that involves penetration of the skin with needles in order to stimulate certain points on the body." (or something similar). The medical procedure part is extraneous, and introduces unneeded ambiguity; just stating what it is (alternative medicine), and what it involves (penetration of skin with needles) gets the same point across. -- Nbound (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks a lot for your time and input, Nbound. I prefer "alternative medical procedure" much over "procedure/form of alternative medicine" because it keeps the whole sentence from sounding clumsy... but this might be a good plan B. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC) There have already been legitimate issues claimed about your "Plan A" by editors in that thread, so excluding any change in opinion on their behalf, its unlikely to used as it currently stands. As I started in my original post, we need to work towards a result all parties can agree with. -- Nbound (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC) True. I started a new proposal with new sources at the acupuncture talk page. Thanks again. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 02:10, 5 July 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.

Talk:Morgellons

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Zad68 on 03:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Erythema (talk · contribs)
• Drgao (talk · contribs)
• TechBear (talk · contribs)
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)
• Dbrodbeck (talk · contribs)
• Dawn Bard (talk · contribs)
• Zad68 (talk · contribs)
• Scray (talk · contribs)
• Garrondo (talk · contribs)
• Judgeking (talk · contribs)
• Sailsbystars (talk · contribs)
• Brangifer (talk · contribs)
• 137.111.13.200 (talk · contribs)
• 198.199.134.100 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Current scientific consensus from large, influential organizations like the CDC is that individuals with Morgellons have a delusional belief that they are infested with parasites. There is general agreement across all parties that this is indeed the scientific consensus. There is a proposal to add new content to the article; the policy cited in support of the addition is WP:NPOV. The new proposed content discusses a new theory for the origin of Morgellons, stating that there is an actual infectious parasite. This issue basically is that many editors do not agree that the sources cited meet WP:MEDRS, the medical sourcing guideline. There is general agreement that if there were WP:MEDRS-compliant reliable secondary sources supporting the new theory that such content could be included. But many editors state that as the sources are not reliable, and because WP:NPOV only applies to views presented in reliable sources, the WP:NPOV policy cannot be used in support of including the actual parasite theory.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

LOTS and LOTS of discussion on the Talk page

How do you think we can help?

Determine consensus as to whether the sources proposed are indeed authoritative WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources such that per WP:NPOV the mention of the parasite theory is warranted.

Opening comments by Erythema

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 Drgao

This dispute relates to the article on Morgellons disease, a disease involving skin symptoms and mental symptoms.

A severe non-neutrality exists in this article, as I now describe.

Amongst researchers, there are two competing views on the nature of Morgellons disease: viewpoint (1) says that Morgellons is a real skin disease manifesting body-wide skin lesions and other skin symptoms, likely caused by an infection, and also involving some concomitant mental symptoms; viewpoint (2) says that Morgellons is not a real physical disease at all, but purely a psychiatric condition called delusional parasitosis, in which sufferers self-inflict their skin wounds.

This dispute relates to the fact that viewpoint (1) gets almost no mention at all in the article, and viewpoint (2) not only dominates the vast majority of the article, but furthermore, viewpoint (2) is presented as if it is an established fact.

WP:WEIGHT requires that articles represent all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. So in order to determine the precise prominence of each of the two viewpoints, I have performed a full scientific literature survey of reliable sources, and by enumerating all relevant studies, I counted that there is 1 secondary study, and 12 primary studies supporting viewpoint (1), and 3 secondary studies, and 11 primary studies supporting viewpoint (2). This is roughly equal prominence.

You can the full details of all the studies I counted up HERE.

Thus from these figures which quantify the prominence of each viewpoint, it is clear that viewpoint (1) and viewpoint (2) should be given roughly equal space in the article. But at present, viewpoint (1) occupies only a few percent of the text space.

Myself (Drgao) and editor Erythema say this severe imbalance in the article completely flouts the NPOV requirements of Wikipedia, but all the other editors disagree with us, and they prevent us from adding new material to the article. Drgao (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by TechBear

I had gotten involved with the article in late May, in response to one editor trying to bring in sources from journals known to be "pay to publish." Soon after, a new editor stepped in with a different set of references, asserting that they showed the established scientific consensus to be wrong and demanding that the article be rewritten accordingly. I and others pointed out the problems in new editor's sources; rather than seek out better sources, this person fell to ad hominem attacks and accusations that Wikipedia was trying to "suppress important information" (actual quote.)

I am willing to concede that the current consensus may be wrong; it certainly would not be the first time that long-standing conclusions fell to new research. However, it is my view that any evidence attempting to overturn an established position must meet a high standard of quality, and that this is especially important with regards to medical science, where the well being and even lives of people may hang in the balance. The evidence must come from reputable research sponsors, be reviewed by research experts in the field who have the skill and expertise to evaluate the methodology and conclusions, and be published in a well respected journal. It is my opinion that the sources this editor wishes to use simply do not meet this minimum standard of quality, and therefore should not be used as the basis for rewriting established consensus.

TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Arthur Rubin

I agree with the opening comments by Scray; however I have an objection to the formulation of the dispute. It's not "new proposed content" or a "new theory". The theory was first proposed by Mary, and it's not even new to the article. It was removed from the article when no WP:MEDRS sources could be found. They still haven't been found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Dbrodbeck

There are simply no good WP:MEDRS secondary sources that say that any of these WP:FRINGE views have any use. If we include this material we would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to these fringe ideas. Many of us have tried, in vain, to explain these policies to the couple of WP:SPAs who want this material included. The ad hominem attacks and personal attacks in general, while they have toned down some, did not help matters. This material does not belong in the article, that is the bottom line. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Dawn Bard

I think the article is appropriately neutral and well sourced, and I think any objective review of the page and the talk page with WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE in mind will support this. Sailsbystars below has presented some excellent points. This odd press release, which essentially alleges a Wikipedia conspiracy to keep the truth about Morgellons hidden, predated some of the contentious editing and discussions that have led up to this dipute resolution. I think what we really have here is a broad, policy-based consensus that the article should stand as it is for now. A couple of very passionate, largely single-purpose editors disagree with this consensus, but their efforts on the talk page have failed thus far to change the larger consensus. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Zad68

My view is that the sources offered to support the "genuine infestation/infection" view are insufficient to rise above WP:FRINGE and it would give undue prominence or legitimacy to a non-accepted fringe view to include in the article. There have been two groups of sources offered. The first included three sources, listed in the discussion here. The comments regarding the unworthiness of f1000research and the Dove Press journals there are accurate: the reliability of the journal articles doesn't meet WP:MEDRS and are not MEDLINE indexed, or even PubMed indexed at all. The list of sources given here is an excellent and comprehensive list of PubMed-indexed articles regarding the subject, and the editor who put it together is to be thanked, but the analysis offered is not in line with consensus interpretation of WP:MEDRS. Per policy, primary sources are not to be used to support a WP:DUEWEIGHT (part of WP:NPOV) argument. So, looking only at secondary sources, we have three up-to-date MEDLINE-indexed secondary sources stating Morgellons is delusional; we have a single MEDLINE indexed secondary source from 2006 that does not meet WP:MEDRS per WP:MEDDATE. This leaves three secondary sources supporting delusional, zero supporting infection. (This list also does not include other sources like the CDC, which also does not support infection.) As there are no WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources supporting infection, per policy the article should not cover it. (Note I will be away most of the weekend, back maybe Saturday or Sunday night.) Zad68 19:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Scray

I hope that this process will help us move past the current cycle, which consumes energy (and has often included ad hominem attacks) but does not seem to be progressing. The article currently addresses the minority viewpoint that Morgellon disease has an infectious etiology, with due weight considering the strong consensus in high-quality sources that this is a delusional parasitosis (rather than infection) syndrome. Primary reports in low-quality journals should not be used to refute the strong consensus in high-quality secondary sources. -- Scray (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Garrondo

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 Judgeking

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 Sailsbystars

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.

So I've never been to one of these before, but I think the most relevant thing I can do is quote my comparison of the proposed sources and existing sources for the article, and why the former should not have undue weight in the article. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

... there are some commonalities in all science fields. Dubious research gets published all the time (hence the phrase "publishing in a peer reviewed journal is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for acceptance") in every field. There are several common threads of fringe research that cross all disciplines of research:

1. Fringe research is often published in less well-known journals. The disease associations for Morgellons are published in Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. and f1000research which may or may not have rigorous peer review. The CDC study was published in PLoS One, arguable one of if not the most prestigious medical journal. Multiple other studies have appeared in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the official journal of the psychiatric society supporting a psychological diagnosis.
2. If research is accepted, it will be cited by other people. Hinkle 2011 has 9 citations by other groups. Pearson 2012 (CDC study) has 13 citations by other groups. Middelveen and Stricker 2011("Filament formation associated with spirochetal....") has 7 citations, but of those only two of those aren't self-citations, and those two both disagreed with the conclusion of the study. Lack of favorable external citations is bad.
3. Conversely, excessive self-citation is usually not a sign of a healthy research programme
4. Lastly, when the researchers have to make a press release railing against wikipedia's biases in a desperate attempt to get included in the article, that's usually not a good sign (and that's actually how I came to be interested this article)

So that's how I can evaluate, using objective criteria, how accepted an idea is within a scientific field, even one I don't know much about. So how could you convince me this infectious etiology material should be included? Showing me some citations to their studies from outside their research group by other research groups that support their findings would be a good start, and I think would be fairly persuasive to other editors on this page as well. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening comments by BullRangifer

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 137.111.13.200

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 research group that released the content that is being discussed in this section was funded through a foundation that solicits donations ostensibly from Morgellons sufferers. There is therefore a financial interest in the dissemination of this particular group's content. The articles themselves are primary sources, which significantly contradict other primary and secondary sources. This is most likely due to methodological differences which are best judged through secondary sources, and thus we should wait until these become available. The author of the study discussed authored a press release targeting editors on the Morgellons wikipedia page. I am lead to believe it likely that this author is pressuring editors on the talk page to include their work on the main page, under the username "Erythema". The anonymity of wikipedia users is an important dimension, however if someone is trying to insert their own work into an article, especially when that work is challenged as a reliable source, then the potential conflict of interests should be addressed. I don't think avoiding the question serves anyone's purposes in this case.137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 198.199.134.100

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:Morgellons 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.

Discussion closed pending opening statements: I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Please do not continue this discussion until all listed editors have given opening statements. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC) De-collapsed and opening statement modified at 19:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC), TransporterMan (TALK)

Hello, I am InloveNoi, a DRN volunteer. I'll try my best to assist the parties to come into agreement in a relaxed and friendly way. I assume that all parties have been notified of the DRN, if its not the case please let me know. The topic of Morgellons disease is controversial, because the sick people truly believe there is something crawling or some parasites live in their body. The thing is, even if there would be parasites inside the body, they would have to be of some relatively big size to cause the "crawling" feeling. Yet studies and laboratory tests failed to detect any parasite, and they would absolutely detect them if they are of relatively big size. Recently I have seen a TV program on RT that is a Russian channel. They have called a sufferer, specialists and other people who they thought might help. The patient suffered from the disease for 5 years and went to see many doctors, including attending a specialized parasitology research center. Nothing was detected. The patient was put into a deep hypnosis by an official specialist in this profession and it came out that the patient suffered major psychological problems in the year when the disease started. After the hypnosis the symptoms disappeared. It was agreed between specialists of the traditional medicine, that the person has suffered from "auto-immune disease from a psychological trauma". In my opinion, all these three views should be included in the article. Would the parties agree? InLoveNoi (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Hi, I'm the IP user 198.199.134.100 posting from home instead of work. I'm not sure what three views you're referring to. If you mean any view treating this condition as anything other than a variant of delusional parasitosis when there's no reliable evidence (per WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV) indicating that this is the case, then there are several editors who very much oppose that idea. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC) :InLoveNoi's first-ever edit to Wikipedia was to open this DRN discussion, and the comments given are absolutely inappropriate for a DRN volunteer opening a case. Zad68 12:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I'm grateful to InLoveNoi for volunteering here, but I've got to agree with Zad68 - these comments are entirely out of place here; so much so, that I urge a more experienced DRN volunteer to take over, and consider redacting InLoveNoi's opening. -- Scray (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I have reviewed guidelines regarding an editor becoming a DRN volunteer to take up a case and couldn't see experience to be a requirement. Please remember that this is an informal venue. So I urge to give it a try, thank you. InLoveNoi (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC) The only edits InLoveNoi has ever made were to open this case, and the account was created minutes before. Zad68 12:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I'm just trying to help. Give me a try and lets see if we can solve the dispute. Any editor can volunteer, am I right? Zad68, please remember that this is an informal venue. What is important, is that I'll try my best to reach a solution to everyone's satisfaction and that the way to do so will be nice and relaxed. It seems that I came into somewhat heated debate, so I would ask first all participants to calm down and lets work it out in a friendly way. To the IP user: I'm under impression that there are 3 views on origins of the condition. The first two have been mentioned already and the third one is that it's being considered as an auto-immune body response, whereby body is attacking it's own skin tissues rendering the wounds permanent. It's not sure if that auto-immune body response comes solely from psychological issues. If it does, it could be perhaps sub-grouped under delusional parasitosis. My opinion however, that at this time it's better to list it as a third view. My personal opinion about Morgellones is that it is indeed a delusional parasitosis, because most or all of the wounds are located in the skin areas where the patients can reach, giving the theory that the patient is constantly picking it's own wounds rendering them unable to heal a very good basis. At the same time, even though mainstream, it's still just a theory. Therefore in order to be objective I won't be using my personal opinion in solving this DRN and thus have proposed that all 3 views should be mentioned. InLoveNoi (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC) :::I understand you're just trying to help, but your statements so far demonstrate that you are not yet familiar enough with how the DRN process needs to work, nor with Wikipedia sourcing and article content policies, to moderate this discussion fairly. If you're genuinely interested in seeing this dispute resolved, would you please step back from it? Zad68 13:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry Zad68, I won't be stepping down as per your personal request. I believe I'm familiar with Wikipedia sourcing and article content guidelines enough to allow me to maintain the DRN. I would ask you to refrain from using this venue, that is a place for the discussion about the issue at hand, for your dissatisfaction with myself, even before you gave me a try. InLoveNoi (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I have to agree with Zad68 here. InLoveNoi, I appreciate your willingness to help, but you are not demonstrating that you understand the DRN process here, and if participants doubt your ability to resolve this dispute fairly, it's not going to be good for the process or the article. Please consider withdrawing, and please join the discussion on the article's talk page. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I believe I can maintain the DRN process here and have the ability to resolve this dispute fairly. Please be advised, that this is an informal venue. InLoveNoi (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC) InLoveNoi, while your offer to help is appreciated, it is clear that you don't have the necessary knowledge and experience of how Wikipedia dispute resolution works. If you wish to participate in this discussion, I suggest you do so as a participant. Your continuing to argue that you should mediate the discussion may otherwise be seen as disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I think the most important point all you "mainstream" people are missing is that the CDC study DID find the fibers and identified them as 83% protein before changing their analysis midstream and concluding that those proteins were cellulose. This is what the follow-up study from the Dove Press expands upon to discover what those proteins were.Rodneye9110 (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC) You should also all be aware of some recent inconsistencies surrounding the CDC and some New England congressmen's request under the FOIA. It took the CDC 5 years to respond and when emails were exposed it exposed collusion with Industry in the suppression of Lyme Disease information. Since the spirochetes are the borrelia bacteria which causes the Lyme Disease and the Morgellons then it behooves you to weigh the possibility of suppression of information by our now very paranoid US Govt. I myself was bitten by a deer tick while on a military training exercise in Ft. Eustis, Virginia. I had the bulls-eye shaped rash shortly after redeploying to my duty station in Hawaii. Hawaii doesn't have Lyme disease in the general population or area. I have two out of the five markers for the Western Blot test. I have recently been diagnosed with morgellons. I have already been treated multiple times with Keflex and more recently Doxycycline. So if it is all in my head why do I need these anti-biotics to kill it? Why is a mainstream dermatologist at Straub Hospital diagnosing it as Morgellons and treating it with anti-biotics. Why is it that the psychiatrist that the VA sends me too also confirms that it is a real disease with effects to the mind much like syphilis as stated in the Oslo, Norway study. If you think it is not real, give me your address and I'll send you a sample.Rodneye9110 (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your comments Rodneye9110. We cannot include personal cases in the Wikipedia's general article about Morgellons, however you have provided a fourth view, that is Morgellons may be caused by a bacteria. You have also mentioned that there is some cover-up by US Government/CDC. I advice you to take a look at WP:V and WP:MEDRS and submit any reliable sources here or at the article's talk page. The Rodneye9110's comments bring some new perspective on the issue. Now I have to question whether the definition "delusional parasitosis" is correct at all. If we assume that Rodneye9110 is being delusional, he might as well imagine that he is infected with a pathological bacteria, and not a parasite. I think the word parasitosis should be excluded from the definition, and a new more broad definition rendered instead. I would strongly assume that if there are patients who are delusional about being infected with parasites, there should be some who are delusioned that they are being infected with bacteria, fungus and other forms of disease causing organisms too. InLoveNoi (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I would also like to refer to "Total microbial cells found in association with humans may exceed the total number of cells making up the human body by a factor of ten-to-one. The total number of genes associated with the human microbiome could exceed the total number of human genes by a factor of 100-to-one. Many of these organisms have not been successfully cultured, identified, or otherwise characterized. Organisms expected to be found in the human microbiome, however, may generally be categorized as bacteria (the majority), members of domain Archaea, yeasts, and single-celled eukaryotes as well as various helminth parasites and viruses, the latter including viruses that infect the cellular microbiome organisms (e.g., bacteriophages, the viruses of bacteria)." That is found citation from Human_Microbiome_Project. And another citation: "This suggests that medical science may be forced to abandon the one-microbe model of disease, and rather pay attention to the function of a group of microbes that has somehow gone awry." from Human_microbiome. The research that generated the above conclusion is of unquestionable and highest possible quality, that is above Cochrane reviews and tertiary literature. This research is being sponsored by US NIH and is a collaborative effort by the best world renowned scientists using the most advanced available technology. InLoveNoi (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC) ::InLoveNoi your involvement here is becoming clearly disruptive and you are advised to stop before intervention is requested at a venue like WP:ANI. Zad68 15:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I think the best place to start in settling this dispute is to actually publish in wikipedia the information from the CDC study on page 9 that states that the "material found was 83% protein...". From there the discussion can move forward because neither side should dispute that the study actually says this before it goes off into an unscientific rant that is unsupported by fact. That is why the followup study published in the Dove Press states that the body of the CDC's study was helpful but that their conclusion is not supported by the body of their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodneye9110 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Hitherto uninvolved editor who stummbled across this DRN. I've taken the time to read the extensive discussion on the article talk page and examone the sources, and I have to agree that all of the sources proposed for the fringe view fall far short of WP:MEDRS. In short, there is not mention of the fringe "research" in reliable medical sources. Most of it has been published in non-peer reveiwed publication that would never be read by mainstream medical researchers in the first place. The material that Drgao and Erythema would like to add to this article is thus unreliably sourced, and violates WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. It clearly falls under WP:FRINGE. I just see a lot of deadhorse argumentation and WP:IDHT on the article talk page, and I'm really having a hard time assuming good faith. I don't see much point in further discussion unless WP:MEDRS sources are produced. Consensus on the talk page is already pretty clear that the sources produced so far are unreliable, and I agree. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC) How is it that several people, including Dominus Vobisdu, have made exactly the same mistake, in claiming that this material I want to include comes from non-peer reviewed journals. ALL the material I want to include in the article is published in fully peer reviewed journals, and is WP:MEDRS compliant. It is not that difficult to check whether a journal is peer reviewed or not, and I suggest you go and do this, and then please come back and correct your above statement which you erroneously claim that the journals are not peer reviewed. Drgao (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer's note: Please see the note at the top of this box before editing. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note the following ANI discussion regarding this DRN: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_and_intervention. Zad68 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

:Please wait until the problem with mediation is sorted out, and for the process to be formally restarted. We cannot continue this discussion while the disruption continues. 15:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Invoking mediation controls: For the present time, in light of the controversy pending here, I am assuming the role of mediator here and invoking the rules set out at Wikipedia:MEDIATION#Control_of_mediation to exercise the right to edit this discussion as if it were my own user talk page, which includes the right to refactor, strike, or remove any edits which I feel are inappropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening statements: Editors who have not yet made opening statements should feel free to go ahead and make them in their respective sections, above, and are advised to do so as promptly as possible. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: It would appear that InLoveNoi has indeed withdrawn as a DRN volunteer (actually, has ceased editing since being told by a sysop to withdraw or be blocked). I have de-collapsed, but left closed, the foregoing discussion and will await further opening statements. I have, further, redacted via strikeout all procedural discussions above so as to leave only discussions about the substance of the dispute. While the remaining discussions are premature and I will not allow them to continue at this time, they are what they are and they should not be removed from the record. If discussion does proceed, then we can give them as much or as little weight as they may deserve. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Further update: InLoveNoi is now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Subject: Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati on 14:15, 4 July 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 Subject: Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati (talk · contribs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Most of the suggestions about the Subject: Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati are not even replied. To take action for those suggestion is not happening. A lot of Information supported by reliable and verifiable references was even rejected. The subject is a disabled inventor kid fighting against death. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried my level best to avoid dispute by not editing the article and only giving suggestions at the talk page of the article. But now i am helpless as most of the suggestions are not even replied. How do you think we can help? All new sections of the Talk page of the article should be heard/listened and action must be taken as per Wikipedia norms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati Opening comments by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati 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. Subject: Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati 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.

Railway articles

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Superfast1111 on 06:48, 5 July 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 Surat railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Secunderabad railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Jan Shatabdi Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Sinhagad Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Grant Road railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Byculla railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Superfast1111 (talk · contribs) Abhishek191288 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The above list is just a tip of the iceberg.Images that i have uploaded are being targeted by only one editor. Despite the fact that some of the pages have had no images,they were nevertheless removed without good reason.We have two sets of opposite opinions but there has been no factual dispute of information. I for one am tired of repeatedly getting into a edit war. Need this dispute to be resolved once & for all. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have been very much at each others throats & i have had my privileges suspended twice because of it. I have tried to talk to the other editor with civility (most of the time) but little has come out of it. I have on separate occasions explained why i edited obviously wrong information but he has refused to agree. Others have also agreed with me.If what i am doing is so wrong then why except him is no one else undoing my work? There have hardly been such instances.I am just tired of it. How do you think we can help? Help decide who is right & who is wrong or why i am unable to resolve this dispute.I do agree that right & wrong is a personal opinion but i request you to look at Mumbai Rajdhani & Surat Railway station,August Kranti Rajdhani,Mulund railway station & his own talk page pages where even factual information has been disputed.Anyone can edit & add info on various pages but 'User blocked for repeating same behaviour' is not a reason for editing especially when the page has no other image. Thank you. Opening comments by Abhishek191288 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. Railway articles 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. Vivint – New discussion. Filed by Pokey5945 on 23:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Vivint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Pokey5945 (talk · contribs) Oldnoah (talk · contribs) Youngnoah (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Oldnoah and Youngnoah continue to remove material about Vivint's legal problems, and to replace it with corporate puffery. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have posted on the talk page but received no response. The complaint at first was that the section was too long. I reduced the section's length in response, but the complaint has not changed. How do you think we can help? I would appreciate guidance in dealing with what appears to be a corporate PR office's attempt to sanitize this firm's WP article. Opening comments by Oldnoah 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 Youngnoah 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. Vivint 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.