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
Nivkh alphabets	In Progress	Modun (t)	13 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 hours	Kwamikagami (t)	6 hours
Lydham Hall	Closed	Olga Sydney (t)	6 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 12 hours
Wudu	New	Nasserb786 (t)	4 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 8 hours	Abo Yemen (t)	1 days, 12 hours
Benevolent dictatorship	Closed	Banedon (t)	4 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 8 hours
Super Bowl_III	Closed	73.28.218.215 (t)	3 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 8 hours
Battle of_al-Qadisiyyah	Closed	M7md AAAA (t)	2 days, 23 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 13 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 13 hours
Queen of Sheba	Closed	Afrodiplomacy (t)	2 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 12 hours
Dog fashion	New	RteeeeKed (t)	2 days, 6 hours	None	n/a	Medlawar (t)	3 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 02:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people

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

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.Sam?k^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-Sam?k^Talk 18:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute reopened, Parties informed. --The Historian (talk) 19:54, 9 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)

It seems the first volunteer has quit. So what now? EyeTruth (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Morgellons

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

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.

In a nut shell. The actual dispute is more complicated than described by the others involved with this dispute indicate. Morgellons is a controversial illness. There are 2 POVs represented in medical literature. This is evident with a PubMed search. 1 POV is that the illness is delusional in etiology. The other is that it is not and there are publications indicating that it is caused by a bacterial infection. This bacterium, Borrelia, is related to syphilis and thus explains the psychiatric manifestations experience by some patients. The predominant POV is that it is delusional, however the POV that it is infectious in etiology represents a significant minority POV and thus it deserves proportional representation. The problems are 2 fold: One, content from the infectious POV has been blocked, even for one paragraph to be included, even while leaving the existing text untouched: Two, there is a great deal of bias in the current article. It has been carefully edited to maximize the opinion that it is delusional in etiology. The references are largely cherry-picked and do not follow WP:MEDRS policy. Over half of the references come from Popular Press, i.e. newspaper articles, TV interviews and the like. One of these is even an interview with an "anonymous dermatologist" in Popular Mechanics magazine and lacks verifiability, as do the rest. These are clearly not appropriate secondary sources. Those that are from peer-reviewed medical journals are predominantly opinion pieces -- again they are not appropriate secondary sources. The remaining few are original research. This is an area of medicine undergoing active research and as such there are not many (if any) suitable secondary sources. I have proposed to add ONE small paragraph from the infectious POV on the grounds that a significant minority view needs to be represented for NPOV. They are original research, but WP:MEDRS allows original research when secondary sources are lacking. The current article has used a few original research papers. WP:MEDRS encourages the use of on-line medical journals as they can be accessed by readers, but I have been told that they are unreliable (and numerous other things). There have been false statements made that are damaging to the reputations of the medical journals publishing papers representing the infectious POV that I find offensive and objectionable. NPOV cannot be achieved as long as double standards of policy application are applied to the two viewpoints. I have repeatedly asked for reasonable and objective justification, but have yet to receive an answer that makes sense. Mostly when I bring up a valid point there is no response at all. I am a new user and WP indicates I should be welcomed and treated with patience. Instead I have been bullied and treated with hostility. If fair and proportionate representation of both POVs cannot be achieved then the current article should be deleted on the grounds that the references used to not meet WP policy.Erythema (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Erythema

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 9 primary studies supporting viewpoint (1), and 3 secondary studies, and 15 primary studies supporting viewpoint (2).

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) should be given around ⅓ of the article text space, and viewpoint (2) around ⅔ of the article text space. 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)

MInor updates made on July 7th. Drgao (talk) 21:56, 7 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

An important aspect of this dispute is whether advocates of a fringe idea (that Morgellons is a real dermatologic condition, rather than a form of delusional parasitosis) can use Wikipedia to promote that POV as a mainstream POV, or of at least equal worth to the mainstream scientific POV on the subject (which is that it's a form of delusional parasitosis). They believe that NPOV is violated when they are not given equal due weight. Sorry, but that's not true. They fail to understand NPOV.

They constantly use primary studies to make their point, in violation of MEDRS. This is not the place to make cutting edge pronouncements. For one thing, being on the cutting edge means you're on the wrong side of the knife. Yes, that's a joke, but for Wikipedia, it's the way we apply our sourcing policies. We are always supposed to be "behind the curve," never on the leading edge of publishing new facts. IF (that's a big IF) this ever turns out to be proven to be a new dermatologic condition, the major dermatology organizations will state that fact in unequivocal terms.

When that happens, and not before then, the POV pushed by these believers will have to remain the fringe position, in opposition to the mainstream one, which happens to be that these editors are pushing a delusional belief. Until then, their POV will be documented, but not given equal weight with the current scientific consensus. The article content and due weight balance will indeed change when large literature reviews that are not affiliated with those who make a living from pushing this fringe POV start to clearly document it as a new disease. Independent replication of research results must happen again and again. Then we'll definitely document that fact, and Morgellons will be presented here at Wikipedia as a new disease. It will happen, but a short time AFTER it happens in the real world. These editors must be patient and stop disrupting Wikipedia. They are a huge time sink and need to be blocked, or, at the least, immediately topic banned.

That several of them are delusional happens to be a fact, since several of them have admitted to being sufferers, and even admitted to having mental health issues. Too bad about that, but this is not the place to push a POV based on primary sources, often from "paid to publish" sources, or fringe scientists affiliated with the modern creator of the term "Morgellons". -- Brangifer (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 137.111.13.200

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

At this point, I no longer find it reasonable to assume good faith on the part of the editors favoring the inclusion of fringe research. One of them has now created a sockpuppet account to try and "mediate" the dispute. Erythema shows strong signs of actually being one of the fringe researchers who recently issued a press release decrying Wikipedia's policies (and did not deny it when directly asked). Drgao is operating under the idea that because the concensus of the medical community now supports the existence of some other condition that Drgao suffers from, we should include fringe research about Morgellons; Drgao also repeatedly misrepresents studies or quotes from studies that do not support his views as doing so and even claimed that an opinion piece published well before any modern primary sources about Morgellons (the other two predate the current scientific method, one predates Pasteur) was a "secondary source". Neither has contributed to any other Wikipedia article. There are one or two other editors in favor of fringe research, but they don't appear to be meaningfully contributing to the discussion. I realize the named editors sincerely believe Morgellons is a non-delusional condition, but deliberate dishonesty is not a valid method of seeking editor concensus. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Drgao does get involved in editing other pages on similar/related topics. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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.

• 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)

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)

I have just deleted a comment by Drgao, a party to this dispute, added to the discussion here before this case was opened for discussion. I — reluctantly — retained the one by Dominus Vobisdu, though I moved it into the closed section, because s/he was not a party to the dispute. All further comments of a nonprocedural nature in this "Talk:Morgellons discussion" will be summarily deleted if made before this case is opened for discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now deleted all the preliminary edits by InLoveNoi and Rodneye9110 as both accounts have been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of blocked user Ryanspir. In the process, I have also deleted some response edits by legitimate participants here, but all that were deleted were merely responsive to the attempts by Ryanspir to manipulate this process and did not make any substantive comments on the substance of this case. If anyone objects, please drop a note on my user talk page and we'll discuss working your comments back in. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry to all parties

We're waiting for the last two listed editors to give opening statements, but while we're waiting I need to raise this issue: The DRN guidelines say:

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.

As long as I've been doing dispute resolution, I have no doubt that I have at least crossed paths with some of the editors in this case. I will represent to you that to the extent that I have done so I have not formed any opinions or impressions which would cause me to be biased either against them or in their favor. Indeed, I don't have any particular memories of any of you except that some of your usernames seem familiar to me. That does not mean that I have not had strong interactions and even confrontations or commiserations with some of you. It only means that I don't remember them if I did. If any come back to mind, I will immediately disclose them here. (If anyone wants to check my prior interactions with everyone here, more power to you: You can use the tool here to do so. Let me know if you find anything.} But my point is this: If you want to lodge an objection to my further participation, do it now, not later, unless I subsequently discuss a connection. Also, if any of you have had interactions with me, good or bad, which might bias me please say so now and I'll specifically check those out. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC) PS: Feel free to answer or address this inquiry, below, but do not begin discussing the dispute yet. — TM

I have no issue with you moderating. Can we get started? We're only missing statements from Garrondo and Judgeking, and their involvement in this discussion at the article Talk page was minimal. I count only 3 comments from Garrondo, all over 1 month old, and Garrondo has been editing since the DRN notice so it does not look like Garrondo is interested. I count only 2 comments from Judgeking, most recent was 10 days ago, Judgeking hasn't edited since 27 June. And based on their involvement at the article, their viewpoints are already being represented here by many other editors already. Zad68 16:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to feel the same way. I'm going to give them until tomorrow to weigh in or for anyone else to lodge an objection to my mediation and if neither occurs, we'll probably forge ahead. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial ground rules

The following are adopted pursuant to Wikipedia:MEDIATION#Control_of_mediation, and are subject to supplementation, revision, or revocation at any time.

• You must check this page every day you edit Wikipedia (and at least once every 48 hours if you don't have an edit during that time) and respond to any inquiries which I make. If you're going to be unavailable for awhile and unable to check this and/or respond, say so and I'll decide whether to put this on hold or move forward without you.
• At least for the present time, this will move forward in a question and answer manner in which I ask questions or make comments and request you to respond. Some inquiries may be to individuals, others may be to groups or factions. Do not respond to or comment upon responses or answers made by others unless I request it. If you do, I reserve the right to delete those responses. Only answer the question that I ask, do not jump ahead or say anything else. Again, I reserve the right to delete any answers which go beyond the questions that I ask.
• Be civil. Do not comment about one another. If you wish to comment or complain about another user's conduct, motivations, identity, or anything else, take it to an administrator (I'm not one, by the way), to WP:RFC/U, or to WP:ANI, but don't raise it here (do drop a note on my user talk page that you're doing that, however, as I may want to put a hold on the proceedings here until that conduct matter is resolved.) Listen up: This rule will be strictly enforced. Don't say, "I didn't mean it that way" or "I was just angry", just don't do it. Comments made in violation of this rule will be deleted the first time; the second time, either you or me will be leaving this discusion.
• Except for Judgeking and Garrondo (who can still make opening statements), the opening statements are now closed. Do not change or supplement them further.
• I tend to be courteous and say "please" before requests, instructions, or rules. Do not take my use of "please" to mean that what follows it is optional. Indeed, none of my requests, instructions, or rules are optional; if I mean something to be optional, I'll make that unmistakeably clear with a qualifier such as, "You don't have to answer this if you don't want to" or "This isn't required, but" or something like that.
• The IP editors must keep up with the IP's they're editing from and let us know here if they change. This isn't required, but I would strongly prefer that they create accounts, identify them with their IP, and sign in to participate here.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Beginning the mediation

Read the "Initial ground rules" section, above. Your continued participation in this mediation constitutes complete acceptance of the foregoing rules.

As I understand it, this is a NPOV dispute with certain editors wishing to include material in the article saying that Morgellons is an actual, as opposed to mental, disease or condition. Other editors oppose that inclusion because they claim that the sources are insufficiently reliable to include it. Although one editor, Erythema, also claims that the existing material about Morgellons being a mental condition is also inadequately sourced, I do not see that as the primary matter in dispute in this case except perhaps as a question of what balance to give the competing views if the real-disease theory proves to be includable. From my point of view, to try to decide how much space and/or weight to give the real-disease theory before deciding whether or not it can be included at all is putting the horse before the cart and I do not intend to discuss or allow discussion of that issue until the other issue is resolved, at which time we may go on to the proper-weight issue.

• Inquiry #1 @Everyone: As I analyze it, Erythema and Drgao support the inclusion of the material in question. All other participants here oppose it due to lack of adequate sources. Please let me know, below, if I've got that wrong. Don't answer at all if I have it right.
• Inquiry #2 @Everyone: If there any sources whose reliability is in question other than the following, please list them below:

• The mystery of Morgellons disease: infection or delusion? (2006) MEDLINE Full paper
• Morgellons: a novel dermatological perspective as the multisystem infective disease borreliosis (2013).
• Association of spirochetal infection with Morgellons disease (2013).
• Characterization and evolution of dermal filaments from patients with Morgellons disease (2013)
• Morgellons Disease: A Chemical and Light Microscopic Study (2012).
• Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection: a comparative approach to Morgellons disease (2011)
• Delusions may not always be delusions (2010, Editorial) MEDLINE Full paper
• Morgellons disease: Analysis of a population with clinically confirmed microscopic subcutaneous fibers of unknown etiology (2010)
• Morgellons disease, illuminating an undefined illness: a case series (2009)
• Myiasis, fillan, and the morgellons (1946) MEDLINE Full paper

• Inquiry #3 @Everyone: There are three ways we can approach this mediation:

Method A (default) — Classic Mediation: A traditional mediation where I try to get everyone to come to agreement.

Method B — Opinion: I can read all the arguments and merely provide a third-party neutral opinion, which everyone is free to accept or reject, but which closes the mediation on the point on which I opine.

Method C — Arbitration by agreement: Same as #2, but everyone involved here agrees that they will abide by my opinion and quit discussing the issue in dispute until something changes in the real world (for example, new studies or sources being done and becoming available) which renders it inapplicable.

We'll use Method A unless everyone prefers B or C, though I reserve the right to use B on my on volition if and when I think it becomes appropriate. Method C would require an affirmative agreement from everyone. So in the space below, just indicate which one you would prefer. Just put in something like ":A — ~~~~" or ":B then A then C, in that order — ~~~~"

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Responses to Inquiry #1:

The material dramatically deviates from previous studies, and it is questionable whether it would have passed the orthodox peer-review stages of mainstream journals (due to the combination of methodology and conclusions). However, it is incorrect to suggest that this automatically renders the conclusions false. It requires the adjudication of further research and impartial literature review from secondary sources. I believe the material would be suitable for the page if and when that happens. This essentially fleshes out the first inquiry, as I see it.137.111.13.200 (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct. However, my concerns are, as you mentioned, 2 fold. If the references used to support the inclusion of new material do not meet WP standards for medical references then, few of the references used in the current article do either.Erythema (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Responses to Inquiry #2:

I think an additional problem is that some editors are claiming that some studies or portions thereof support the "actual disease" hypothesis when they clearly do not. Where the studies have a "conclusions" section, I'd like to seek agreement that we judge the study as supporting that conclusion instead of quote mining the study. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I realize the WP policy does not favor using original research, but that it does allow for the inclusion of primary studies when secondary studies are lacking. I want to be clear that I do not expect the inclusion of new material to be used in a way that is not compatible with WP policy. I honestly want the article to be a fair and unbiased representation of the medical literature available on this topic, but if primary sources are used to reference 1 POV then they should be allowed to reference the other (or any other POVs). I would like to mention there is a reliable secondary resource citing material supporting the infectious hypothesis. Other editors seem to agree that the F1000 itself is a prestigious group of scientists and doctors, although they dispute F1000 Research. The F1000 (not part of F1000 Research) have cited the paper, Morgellons Disease: A Chemical and Light Microscopic Study (2012), in F1000 Prime as a recommended article, f1000.com/prime/716597867 , and as a must read or very good article. This citation is not the same as the paper itself (it was published by OMICS) and is therefore a secondary source. I would like to see this included as an additional reference.Erythema (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Responses to Inquiry #3:

I prefer Method C most, Method B next, and Method A least, but will still agree to move forward with any of them. Zad68 15:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I echo Zad68 in preferring C, B, and A last, but agreeing to abide by whichever approach will resolve the dispute. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A (based on TM's suggestion), but C and B are fine, too -- Scray (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

C and B, then A, in the interest of reaching consensus (and after considering why so many favor this, I agree). -- Scray (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

C is my preference, followed by A, then lastly B. Drgao (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

C is my preference, then A then B.137.111.13.200 (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely C. A & B wouldn't be a definitive decision on the process and I'd prefer to resolve this ASAP. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Prefer C. Unsure as to preference between remaining options. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

C,B then A. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

C, then B then A. I'll participate whichever is ultimately chosen. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I prefer A if it is possible. But if not either B or C.Erythema (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Interim evaluation of the foregoing: Since option C is the first preference of most participants and at least an alternative choice of everyone else, I would use C except that two editors, Brangifer and Arthur Rubin, have not agreed to it (or any other choice) and C must be unanimous to be available. I would ordinarily just move ahead with one of the other options but when the responses already given are evaluated it's very close to a dead heat between A and B. I'm going to poke them on their talk pages and ask them to weigh in here. If they've not done so in the next 24 hours or so, then we'll move ahead. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I prefer C. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

douglas karpen

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Lordvolton on 03:37, 6 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

• Douglas Karpen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lordvolton (talk · contribs)
• Roscelese (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute relates to the reliability of sources. Although the editor has made wholesale changes to the article beyond the sources and keeps reverting back to their version.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've added additional sources that I felt would address the concerns of the other editor: Dallas Morning News, Washington Times, The National Review, and The New American.

How do you think we can help?

Clarify for the parties involved which sources are reliable... and separately address the wholesale change to the article that was made under the guise of "reliable sources". I had hoped we could work together to find a common ground, but the editor was unwilling to find a common ground.

Opening comments by Roscelese

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.

I don't think this is a DRN case. The sources Lordvolton is adding - LifeNews, the John Birch Society, Operation Rescue, and so on - are obviously not reliable, even less so for BLP sensitive material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Lordvolton: No further discussion until case is accepted by a DRN volunteer.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rebuttal by Lord Volton Roscelese made unilateral changes to the article without seeking consensus. However, in an attempt to address her concerns I added several reputable sources: The Washington Times, The Dallas Morning News, The National Review, and The New American. Unfortunately, the article was reverted back to her original edit (multiple times). To the extent she only had concerns with the reliability of certain sources those could have been discussed and potentially removed when four additional sources were added. Instead she imposed unilateral edits and refused to work with me to find a common ground. (see Douglas Karpen talk page, and our talk pages). Thank you! Lordvolton (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

douglas karpen 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 article has been nominated for deletion, and the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Karpen. Looking at the way the discussion is going, it seems likely the article will be deleted soon, and this request rendered moot. PhilKnight (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence‎

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

Filed by Darkness Shines on 12:48, 6 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

• 2002 Gujarat violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• Dlv999 (talk · contribs)
• Neo. (talk · contribs)
• Solomon7968 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Two users have decided that the academic sources I am using to improve this article are "biased" "conspiracy theorists" who "always to create sensation to sell their books" This is obviously not in line with our policies on reliable sourcing. Articles on contentious historical subjects need to use the most reliable and up to date sources available. Not newspaper articles from the period in question.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the talk page to no avail, Neo. & Solomon7968 quite simply refuse to allow the article to be rewritten in accordance of NPOV & the views of mainstream academic sources,

How do you think we can help?

Explain to the users that the use of the best quality sources is not a violation of NPOV but is in fact following it.

Opening comments by Dlv999

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 Neo.

I sense this is trick by user:Darkness Shine. If neutral users say that his so-called 'academic sources' are OK to be used in the article then he gets license to replace whole article with his POV version. Article is written by community over 10 years and DS calls it Shite. He has created his own version of article here in user space and slowly replacing whole article with his own POV version. Articles on similar incidents of violence like September 11 attacks or Iraq war use media sources. But user is removing reputed media sources and has picked up so-called 'academic sources' to support his POV.

I don't think this issue is discussed enough on talkpage to qualify for this forum. I request uninvolved users to tell DS to discuss his every source on talkpage first. neo (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Solomon7968

I am a loss to understand how I am either involved or a participant in a dispute. My only statement in this so called "Dispute" is to pointing out to User:Dlv999 that No where in wikipedia there is any guidelines which states that we have to only use academic sources. I do not think my position is at all disputed and neither have I quite simply refuse to allow the article to be rewritten in accordance of NPOV & the views of mainstream academic sources. The Legend of Zorro 13:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: Infact I have not touched the disputed article 2002 Gujarat violence once and have edited the talk page once for a reply to User:Dlv999. If User:Darkness Shines agrees with my position that No where in wikipedia there is any guidelines which states that we have to only use academic sources, then I do not think I am a participant in a dispute. The Legend of Zorro 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence‎ 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 PhilKnight, and I'm a volunteer here on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. There is some guidance about using news sources at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations. The guideline says "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." But then goes on to say "News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic." From my perspective, this doesn't go as far as saying they shouldn't be used. PhilKnight (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Istrian exodus

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Thehistorian10 on 19:06, 6 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:Istrian exodus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Thehistorian10 (talk · contribs)
• DIREKTOR (talk · contribs)
• Silvio1973 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Parties do not agree on how the lead section of the article "Istrian exodus" should be written, nor can they agree on appropriate sources

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The original disputers have tried a discussion on the talkpage, followed by a 3O, which I gave. In response to that 3O, the discussion degenerated into a spat between editors that seemed to be going nowhere

How do you think we can help?

Help the original disputers reach consensus on the structure of the lead, and the appropriate sources to be used in that lead

Opening comments by DIREKTOR

I've written a rather detailed "deposition" on Talk:Istrian exodus (my last post) please refer to that. -- Director (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Silvio1973

It is somehow sad that we have arrived here. I genuinely believed there was enough room to reach consensus. The issue is that it's difficult to discuss when the other party does not assume good faith. Indeed, my counterparty went further than this and qualified me of lier, nationalist and extremist.

From my side I can say that I do not have any special opinion about user Direktor. He has different opinions on the Istrian exodus. He tried to push his opinions and this is normal. What is not normal (and I make abstraction of the language he used in my respect) is that despite multiple requests from me and the Mediator he did not provide any source in support of his edit. Indeed he looked more interested in demonstrating first the inexistence, then the unreliability and in the end (when all other options exhausted) the misrepresentation of the sources I would allegedly made to support used my edit. The whole discussion became even more difficult when the Mediator declared to be tempted to approve my edit.

Indeed, I do not believe my opinion is extremist at all. I have posted a well sourced edit and if necessary I can source it even more (I volunterely limited myself to the best available 4 sources). --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of formal recusal

As I have already described, I am already heavily involved in this dispute per Wikipedia:INVOLVED, and, in a not unconnected manner, Wikipedia:COI. Threfore, I give formal notice of my recusal from this case, save in the instance where the eventual mediator asks for details about the Wikipedia:3O that I gave. Notwithstanding the above, I will be watching this page since I have other business to do regarding Wikipedia:DRN (namely, mediation of another dispute). --The Historian (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Istrian exodus 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.

ETools

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Paul2924 on 08:31, 11 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 ETools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Paul2924 (talk · contribs) MrOllie (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am attempting to update the e-Tools article to discuss the grass-roots effort and public domain support that has started to revive the orphaned software. MrOllie constantly deletes the edits without citing specific reasons (he is generalized in his comments). Even after I cited chapter and verse as to why the edits meet Wiki standards, he continues to delete the content that has been added. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion has been made on the COI board where MrOllie originally brought the issue. Entry was adjusted to ensure it meets all Wiki requirements and policy. I cut and pasted the actual policy that is claimed to be involved and addressed each element in a discussion to ensure that the other editor understands that it meets all the requirements. In their "opinion" they are still convinced that it doesn't rather than basing their decision on black-letter policy as stated. How do you think we can help? (1) As MrOllie did not originally engage me (the original contributor) when he decided to revert my edits, and he is engaged in an edit-war and has a history of this in the past (see others on his talk page) I recommend that he be banned from making further edits. (2) To prevent him from continuing these changes, can the page be locked so that I manage the edits to it. The software is an orphan software and no activity has taken place in the past few years. Opening comments by MrOllie 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. ETools 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.

Team Kaobon

– New discussion.

Filed by Nextgenliverpool on 10:50, 12 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

• Team Kaobon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nextgenliverpool (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I visit a gym and set up a wikipedia page, after awhile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Kaobon setup their page, edited my page "next generation mma" with a page redirect now my page doesn't appear in wikipedia

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I haven't took any other steps to resolve the matter

How do you think we can help?

I think you could reinstate my old Next Generation MMA page and stop it being redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Kaobon

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.

Team Kaobon 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.