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
Neith	Resolved	Potymkin (t)	30 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 21 hours
Defense of Sihang Warehouse	Closed	Adachi1939 (t)	11 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours
New Mexico State University and University of New Mexico	New	Alamo NM (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 hours
Genesis creation narrative	New	Violoncello10104 (t)	7 hours	None	n/a	Tgeorgescu (t)	4 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 22:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Example case

Spore (2008 video game) (Example case) (Example post) Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.) Me and Example (talk · contribs) are having a bit of a dispute about an article, Spore (2008 video game). Some of the references in the article support the genre being a god game, others support the genre being a life simulation or a simulation game. I think we need to come with a way to have both listed in the article, as all references seem reliable. Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Steven Zhang (talk · contribs), Example (talk · contribs) Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I have tried talking about the issue with Example on the article talk page, but I need some extra input on what I can do here to move forward with resolving this dispute, as there are numerous sources supporting the different genres. What can we do to help resolve this issue? Direct me to ways to resolve this dispute, or where I can get assistance in resolving the dispute. We need to come up with a compromise as how to move forward with the article. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... Discussion Resolution The dispute at hand seems to be to me that there are multiple possible genres to the article, and many sources backing up the different genres, however the issue of which genre best fits is still an issue. A mediation cabal case might be useful here, the assistance of a third party editor could assist in working out a compromise that works well. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....

JM Productions and MorbidThoughts dispute

• JM Productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

An issue concerning a particular incident involving the company and one of its former employees has been seen a defamatory because of the source in question being viral video sites, even when the videos being used as sources feature quotes that come from the parties involved in the dispute. Furthermore, the user has continuously threatened to block me from editing Wiki pages, even though I have seen no sufficient proof that the user has any authority to do such. Since there is no proof to who this user has implied himself to be, the conspiracy theories that came from the company that put out the video that began the controversy in question, and how some companies have edited Wiki articles to hide criticisms about them, I have suspected that this user might have a personal gain by keeping talk about the incident quiet and using the blocking threat as a scare tactic, though there is no way for me to confirm that one way or another. The edits I have provided were intended to be in good faith and to add what I thought was a critical incident in the company's history.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Darkpower (talk · contribs)
• Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs)

MorbidThoughts has left comments about these edits in the language which suggests that he's an admin, yet no sufficient proof exists, to my knowledge, as to him having this power. I have suspicions that his actions are based on either bias towards the company or against the former employee. Either way, I do not suspect his actions are in good faith.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have discussed this on both his talk page and on the JM Productions talk page, discussing possible tags that would be appropriate to add to such a section if there's a dispute over it. On both occasions, the tag suggestion has been completely ignored in favor of strict admin action, any talk was completely stonewalled, and a claim that the sources that were used were not sufficient and were deemed "gossip sites". The sites and videos used came from the parties involved in the incident (and the individual was formally employed with that company), which makes it clear that some consideration should be taken due to the persons telling the story.

• How do you think we can help?

A third party that can safely make a call as to possible tags that can be used. There have been no requests from Morbid to have any other party involved. Since there is dispute about his status as a user on Wikipedia, this should be addressed, as well. I would like to see a discussion amongst several users, at least, concerning the section instead of a rash decision based upon possible bias followed by idle threats.

Darkpower (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

JM Productions and MorbidThoughts dispute discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• Just a note here. Since the disputed text involves living people, WP:BLP comes into play. Looking over the sources and the disputed text, none of the sources is what I would call a high-quality reliable source. I know this is porn, but even porn has good reliable sources that can be used to verify this stuff, and I just don't see these being used in this case. This is why good secondary sources like newspapers, journals, or books are better than simply citing video clips and stuff like that. Journalists have the time to research the details behind an incident, and can themselves help provide context and analysis. When your major source is a video of dubious provenance, with no context or analysis along with it, then Wikipedia really shouldn't be reporting on any "incident" supposedly shown in a video. If you want to say everything you keep adding to the article, find a newspaper/journal/magazine article (or source of equivalent reliability) that reports the level of detail you are. Simply citing a video isn't good enough, really. You need better sources. --Jayron32 02:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand the questionable nature that some viral videos tend to carry on this site, which is why I tried to take special care about adding them and making sure that the section took a NPOV side of things. This is why I suggested the tag solution: let the users decide. That could also lead to someone who has already found additional sources.

And speaking of, I might have been able to come through with some additional sources, though they come in the form of internet sites of different sorts (some are reliable, though you take what you can get since most mainstream sites are just going to talk about the immorality of porn and never about the details). I was surprised what I found when I used The Google to search for this. This also proves my first theory correct: that this incident got a LOT of attention, and as such, might be worthwhile to mention. I'd have to check to see if these sources are just as viable, though I question still why a video of an interview of one of the two members involved in the incident is not enough proof that anything actually happened.

And this also does not resolve the other half of my issue: the user's attitude towards this. No alternative to where the section can be discussed by anyone. He seemed to just do what he wanted without any care to the good faith of Wikipedia. I tried to add the section in good faith (and yes, I will be looking at trying to reinstate that section; I don't give up that easily, and hopefully new sources will be enough). His "do it and be blocked" attitude without even considering any other reasonable alternatives just strikes me as odd and suspicious.Darkpower (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why I cited WP:BLP. With living persons, precaution must be taken to avoid even the appearence of being defamatory; WP:BLP is clear: with contested information about living persons, don't "tag and let the reader decide". We remove the information entirely, and don't report it at all, until the information can be clearly backed up with reliable sources. We don't take chances with this stuff, we don't "let the reader decide" when information which is potentially defamatory is in articles. Just leave it out unless and until good sources can be found. Please read WP:BLP, the guidance is in the lead section. --Jayron32 19:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As another neutral, I concur entirely with Jayron32, but would further caution that WP:GRAPEVINE says that the three revert rule does not apply to reverts of removed contentious BLP information. Unless the new sources are absolutely and unquestionably reliable - something I suspect will be difficult to achieve considering the subject material - then boldly reintroducing the material without first discussing the new proposed sources at the BLP noticeboard before the material is reintroduced will be taking a considerable risk. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• On the adminship/warning issue: if someone is doing something wrong, you don't have to be an admin in order to warn that person. I frequently warn people about bad behaviour and point out that if they persist they may be blocked and I'm not an admin. You need an admin to actually do the block, but if you are in the right about policy, there isn't an issue. Morbidthoughts has posted ordinary automated warnings to Darkpower's talk page. Just to make it clear, Morbidthoughts is not an admin. But the warnings he placed on your user page aren't a big deal. As for the BLP issues, as TransporterMan says, I'd suggest taking it to the BLP noticeboard. Porno-related BLP issues are a recurring issue. You might also want to ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography as I'm sure there are regulars there used to handling porno-BLP issues. I don't see any major civility or behaviour issues that need the attention of an admin here, and I hope that the WikiProject Pornography people can help sort the BLP/source use issues out. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Death of Caylee Anthony, Missing white woman syndrome

• Death of Caylee Anthony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Missing white woman syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

As a result of the emotional investment of a number of editors at the contentious Death of Caylee Anthony article, it is nearly impossible to keep a link to Missing white woman syndrome in the See Also section. Editors appear to be taking personal offence at even the mention of the popular view that the hysterics over the Anthony trial are the result of MWWS, since it calls into question their own emotional investment in the issue. There has been no attempt to include MWWS in the text of the article itself, only to add it in the See Also section at the end of the article. There is ample evidence that many people -- particularly in the media itself -- regard the Caylee case as a classic and even prototypical example of MWWS. As you can see in the discussion, there is absolutely no controversy at all regarding the obvious and apparent fact that there has been discussion by the media of the Anthony case in relation to MWWS. However, several people are of the mistaken belief that a simple mention of it in the See Also section requires reliable media sources stating for an absolute certainty that this is in fact a case of MWWS. Even though a citation is not required for inclusion in See Also, when a RS citation was found, it was deamed unacceptable because the newspaper in which it appeared was "small." Between the specious dismissal of what RSes do exist and the obvious reason for a shortage of RS criticisms of the mainstream media by the mainstream media, even the completely nonsensical demand that RS be produced for a simple mention in the See Also appendix of an article which already exists on Wikipedia (with mention of the case under contention) can be seen as unsupportable.

Given that there is popular discussion around the Anthony case about its popularity being the result of MWWS, it seems to me to make perfect sense that it be in the See Also section. (Try doing a Google search on "missing white woman syndrome" and "anthony" on Google; this produced 31,500 hits for me; and while this is certainly not a RS, it is certainly solid proof that many, many people regard the Anthony case as MWWS -- certainly enough to warrant a mention in See Also.) The personal and emotional investiture of people in the case appears to be the only reason why people want this link removed, as is evidenced by some of the reasons given for its removal, which range from "lack of RS" (after dismissing what RS exist) to "I don't like it." Given the hysterical emotional irrationality around the case in the population as a whole which makes this article the subject of continuing controversy and dispute, I do not have confidence at this point in resolution without outside mediation by uninvolved editors.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Shirtwaist (talk · contribs)
• My76Strat (talk · contribs)
• Swarm (talk · contribs)
• Mugginsx (talk · contribs) Yes in the See Also Section with FBI reference.
• SmashTheState (talk · contribs)
• Baseball_Bugs (talk · contribs)
• Chickenmonkey (talk · contribs)
• Flyer22 (talk · contribs)
• Carolmooredc (talk · contribs)
• Hashem_sfarim (talk · contribs)
• Crohnie (talk · contribs) 

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

See discussion here.

• How do you think we can help?

This desperately needs the eyes of people without emotional investment in this case, who are not going to take personal offence based on whether or not to add a reference to the See Also appendix of the article.

SmashTheState (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Death of Caylee Anthony, Missing white woman syndrome discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I should probably be added to the list of editors above since I too removed this from the See also section. I believe that the sources being used to state this are unreliable. I also believe that the reason this case got so much attentions is because of the lies, sex, and videos that were produced, not because she was a single white female. Thank you for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What are the sources being used? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This repeated rationale, that the See Also link needs to be removed because there are no "reliable sources" makes no sense whatsoever. That something is linked in the See Also appendix isn't a claim of any kind except that it has some kind of relationship to the material in the article and may be of interest to those who are interested in the article subject. It is not a claim that you, personally, are a racist. It is not even a claim that the hysterics around the Anthony case are the result of MWWS. Only that a significant number of people regard the Anthony case as being an example of MWWS. That there are those who do so has been amply proven. Anyone who disputes that there are many who regard the crazed circus antics around Anthony case as MWWS need only type "missing white woman syndrome" and "caylee anthony" into the Google search engine and observe how many thousands of links pop up. Again, putting a link to MWWS does NOT require reliable sources because no claim to its veracity is being made. -- SmashTheState (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are being used. You can see them at Death of Caylee Anthony. To SmashTheState, the article doesn't say anything about this so putting it in the See also section isn't proper. The article should state something that the case got attentions because of this which it doesn't that I remember. Give a reliable source, not an opinion piece, or add something to the article that shows this, again using a reliable source. You added the Death of Caylee Anthony to this other article, but you used an opinion piece to do so. My understanding is this is not the way policy works. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, Crohnie. The article actually DOES make a reference. The body of the article DOES have something (however brief) about "white woman", said by an authority on psychology. The segment reads this way: "Psychologist Dr. Karyl McBride discussed how some mothers stray away from "the saintly archetype" expected of mothers. "We want so badly to hang onto the belief system that mothers don't harm children," she stated. "It's fascinating that the defense in the Anthony case found a way to blame the father. While we don't know what is true and maybe never will, it is worth taking a look at the narcissistic family when maternal narcissism rules the roost. Casey Anthony is a beautiful white woman and the fact that the case includes such things as sex, lies, and videotapes makes it irresistible." [105]" Apparently you never noticed my comments on the talk page about this. Nor read through the whole article carefully. Also, to be honest, it does not even matter if the article itself made a clear reference to this. That's NOT a hard-fast qualification for a link to be in then "See also" section. As long as there's arguably SOME relevance or remarks made in other sources, or whatever. And there are some. Even though others like to rationalize them away.

Also another thing that you (and others) are just plain wrong about or just don't grasp...is that MWWS is BY ITS VERY NATURE AN "OPINION". So to complain "oh it's just an opinion piece you cited" is rather silly, given the fact that uh Missing White Woman Syndrome is already a THEORY AND AN OPINION TO BEGIN WITH ANYWAY!!!! So any one who mentions it in the media (either McBride the psychiatrist or Rivera the journalist etc etc) would always only be giving their "opinion" about that matter IN THE FIRST PLACE. It would ALWAYS be that way basically. Pretty much. Because it's a theory. But it doesn't matter if they're "opinion pieces". The issue and theory have been raised by quite a number of people and authorities, regarding this media insanity with the Casey Anthony/Caylee Anthony case. In general. Peace.... Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a neutral on this dispute. It seems to me that this matter should be settled in favor of inclusion on the basis of this sentence from the WP:ALSO section of MoS:

Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question.

(Emphasis added.) I would note that nothing in that section suggests that See Also entries must be referenced or reliably sourced. Taken as a whole, that MoS section would seem to favor inclusion of a link unless it can be shown that the subject linked is absolutely unrelated, with marginally-related links being subject to removal if the See Only section becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article (which is not the case here). It would thus be one thing if the proposed link was to, say, Creation–evolution controversy or Persimmon, but there is at least a clear a priori argument to be made that there is a peripheral link to MWWS and some have argued in the discussion that the connection has also been made in the press, if somewhat unreliably. That ought to be enough for inclusion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree include in See Also Section with or without reference. Mugginsx (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need for a reliable source, only for relevance to the topic. There can be pointy examples of "see Alsos", but this seems sufficiently relevant to be of interest and use to the reader. The question to ask is - doess this add something useful? It seems to me that it does. In response to User:Crohnie, there is nothing wrong with using "opinion pieces". After all, this is inherently a matter of opinion. There are no established medical means of reliably diagnosing this 'syndrome'. Paul B (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok fine with me, I pretty much just lurk on this article and add when I have something to say, which isn't too often.  :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How do we know if MWWS is related to Cayley Anthony at all, peripherally or otherwise, if there are no RS that support that assertion? Shirtwaist ☎ 23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

the body of the article DOES have something (however brief) about "white woman", said by an authority on psychology. The segment reads this way: "Psychologist Dr. Karyl McBride discussed how some mothers stray away from "the saintly archetype" expected of mothers. "We want so badly to hang onto the belief system that mothers don't harm children," she stated. "It's fascinating that the defense in the Anthony case found a way to blame the father. While we don't know what is true and maybe never will, it is worth taking a look at the narcissistic family when maternal narcissism rules the roost. Casey Anthony is a beautiful white woman and the fact that the case includes such things as sex, lies, and videotapes makes it irresistible."[105]" My point is that the very article itself gives at least a bit of justification (and a "source" in a sense) for the whole "white woman" angle. The MWWS article has at least some reason to be in the "See also" section. Why not just let this go already? If it means this much to "SmashTheState" and we see journalists like Rivera and psychiatrists like "Dr McBride" saying things like this, then that gives at least some credence to the point here. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What does "Casey Anthony is a beautiful white woman" have at all to do with Cayley Anthony? The article is about the death of Cayley Anthony. Casey Anthony is not the presumed (by some) subject of MWWS, therefore the quote you cite is totally irrelevant to this discussion. And if, as you say, "it means this much to "SmashTheState", why would he say something like this - "I had typed a long response, full of citations and references and a bit on the purpose of consensus. Then I realized that I don't actually give a fuck. You win." -- SmashTheState (talk)2:02 pm, 17 July 2011, Sunday  ? Shirtwaist ☎ 01:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, uh, Caylee was Casey's DAUGHTER...and was "white" too. Did you even read ANY of what I wrote on the talk page regarding this? How can you say "what at all does it have to do"? It has everything to do with it. If it was a black mother with a black toddler daughter, it's NOT likely it would have gotten like this. I've heard Geraldo Rivera (and a few others) say that if this was a black woman who killed (or accidentally killed) her black child in Florida (which happens) this would NOT have gotten NEARLY as much attention, if at all. But, Geraldo and others continue, because Casey is a W-H-I-T-E woman, and the little girl was W-H-I-T-E, that that is at least PART of why the big attention and frenzy. Which, as an example, can be seen right here. Not sure how you missed that, but it's been there. (Also, as to SmashTheState, yeah, he did say that in frustration, but if you notice, HE CAME BACK LATER ON AND STATED A BUNCH OF LOGICAL THINGS, AND GAVE A CITATION AND LINK...to consider. Did you ever see that?) Anyway, the link is NOT totally irrelevant. My point is that the very article itself gives at least a bit of justification (and a "source" in a sense) for the whole "white woman" angle. The MWWS article has at least some reason to be in the "See also" section. Why not just let this go already? If it means this much to "SmashTheState" and we see journalists like Rivera and psychiatrists like "Dr McBride" saying things like this, then that gives at least some credence to the point here. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "a 'source' in a sense" does not appear anywhere in WP:RS as being a valid option. WP requires real, reliable sources. Again, the quote you're talking about is in relation to Casey Anthony as a mother, NOT Cayley Anthony as the supposed subject of MWWS. And yes, I did read what you said in talk, and I also read Swarm's (among others) effective refutation of it, which is what helped inform my opinion on this. Shirtwaist ☎ 02:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Swarm refuted nothing. But just ranted and whined and rationalized sources and citations away. As you're doing. And was wiki-uptight. Not understanding the simple fact that there's a VERY ARTICLE IN A RELIABLE SOURCE that has the VERY WORDS "missing white woman" in it...like right here. That was not "refuted", but simply rationalized away, as "just opinion" (not grasping the point that MWWS is by very nature theory and opinion anyway). You can't see how it "has to do", if they're mother and daughter, and how it was related as a general phenomenon. Then there's not much more I can say. Because when it comes right down to it, you and "Swarm" simply don't like this link in the article, don't like the implications of the matter, and SIMPLY DON'T WANT IT THERE, then NO AMOUNT of "reliable sources" will do, because you and uh "Swarm" willy just find silly reasons to either deny them as "reliable sources" or use sophistry to explain them away, and it's "not good enough" or "was not really referring to that" or "it was just that person's opinion" (not understanding that this very notion of MWWS is basically a theory and opinion to begin with!!!!) or your non-sensical "what does that have anything to do with Caylee"... Why did the psychiatrist even bring it up then? Why are there articles saying this? Obviously the "has to do" is that BOTH of them are white. And you wrongly think that because it says "missing white WOMAN" that "Caylee" can't qualify cuz after all she was a just a child. FAIL. Shows that you're not grasping what the syndrome is really about, and that it's broader than just that. As I said, Swarm (and you) refuted nothing...

Many "See also" links in articles don't necessarily have 100% relation to the main article it's posted in. So what? As long as there is arguably SOME connection or relation, and if some news sources brought it up, whether we personally like it or not or totally agree or not, it's whatever. If SmashTheState wants to put it there, and he has made at least some case for its application or relation, I don't see the big deal. It's not like putting "serial killers" or something in the See also section. Or "Satanic ritual murders"...or something like that, that has NO real relationship to the article, at all. "MWWS" at least is SOMEWHAT pertinent or relational, in some sense. So to me it's whatever. I can see it being there. Or not. (Though I lean more obviously towards it being there...) I don't think this matter is worth this much stress, energy, time, or attention. For this page to even be here now. This thing has gotten silly now. There's pertinence and relevance, and there's enough to prove that. Despite the denials. Cheerio. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Having reverted the link back into the article three times without achieving a clear consensus to do so, thus exposing yourself to possible charges of edit warring, seems to say more about your position on this than "whatever". Shirtwaist ☎ 05:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to learn how to count also. I only reverted TWICE in 24 hours. NOT "three times" like you wrongly said. Also, nice DODGE to all the points and things I raised... Which shows a lot about YOUR position. Whining about "whatever" and slandering me. I NEVER violate "3RR". So saying that I did on this public forum can get YOU in trouble. Gotta be careful what you say. I only reverted twice. It was "SmashTheState" that did it before... I'm not him. You said I "reverted link back into article three times." FAIL...it was only two times. Check it again. The only reason I'm even addressing you now is to set your wrong assertion straight. Otherwise I would not have bothered. I don't want people believing a lie. I NEVER EVER violate "3RR". I'm careful with that. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said anything about 3RR or 24 hours, did I? "Edit warring" is also construed as repeatedly reverting the same thing over more than 24 hours (which is done by some to try, usually unsuccessfully, to get around 3RR- and I'm not saying this was your intention), which is exactly what you did here, here, and here. That's 3 reverts of the same thing in less than two weeks. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well fine. It's true...you didn't actually say "24 hours". But the implication seemed to be there. Because you said "three reverts" and also "charges of edit warring". So I thought you were meaning that. Yes, I did revert a few times, but over a span of time. As you said "2 weeks". And others have too, on this matter. But ALSO, you see that I have put good-faith efforts to DISCUSS the matter at length, on both the talk page and also this special page. As I said, I try hard to avoid CLEAR violations and "3RR". But yes, there was confusion as to what you meant. Because even though it's true you did not say "24 hours" in my case, you didn't exactly say "in the last 2 weeks" either in that comment. So I was not totally sure what you meant, given the context of your charge of "edit warring". I already know that "3RR" is not the only way to "edit war", but it's a bright line that is NOT AMBIGUOUS like other things might be. Also, another thing...I would NOT revert it at all if there was clear consensus on Talk (or here) against having that link on that article. As I said, I do NOT violate WP policies on these things. I do not violate "3RR" NOR "consensus". And no consensus has yet been reached on this thing anyway, so far. Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus when smashthestate kept putting it back in (three times) either, without establishing consensus in talk and after being reverted by three different editors. That's disruptive and qualifies as edit warring. When I was the fourth editor to revert him, you decided four editors making the same revert wasn't enough consensus to keep you from carrying on STS's edit warring. You say there was no clear consensus in Talk against having that link in that article - well guess what - there was no clear consensus for including it either. That's why STS stopped reverting and started this DR. It wasn't a signal for you to keep on reverting where STS left off, that's not how WP wants editors to behave. Instead of continuing to edit war, you should have left it as it was and waited for a clear consensus to emerge here first, not continue STS's disruptive editing. That is how things are supposed to work here. Shirtwaist ☎ 11:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I didn't know exactly that it was "four editors" that did that. Also, the point you're missing is that it was removed (by Macarion) before consensus was actually reached. Meaning that the MWWS link was there for a while now (a good week or two I think) yet someone ("Macarion") decided to remove it. WITH NO EXPLANATION GIVEN... Nothing was stated in his edit comment, when he did that. Why are you not complaining against THAT "behavior". (Meaning, that you're ignoring the CONTEXT of what I did and why...) Even though it was known already that there was a dispute, BUT THAT THE DISPUTE SEEMED TO HAVE ENDED, as no one opined or commented anymore for a while. Yet the link was removed again. That could be deemed as "edit warring" if that's the case. There was already a talk thing on this a week or two ago, the link was still there, yet "Macarion" (against policy arguably) removed it, willy nilly. And then because of that, SmashTheState understandably put it back. And then you and others all of a sudden decided to revert HIM. I saw THAT and did what I did. Macarion had no business doing that with a talk thing already there (so, again, why aren't you crowing against his rude WP-violating "behavior" in doing that?) and doing that with NO explanation or rationale given in the edit comment. He just did it unilaterally. So why shouldn't Smash put it back after that? And with no consensus reached I felt it was wrong for you and others to remove it again. As I said, not everything is so black and white. I did what I did BECAUSE OF A CONTEXT that was obviously warranting what I did. Macarion was wrong in doing that. So conveniently ignoring THAT (where this whole thing recently stemmed from) is not an honest or thorough recount of what went on here. Again, I don't violate 3RR NOR clear consensus. And there was none of that. There was a context for what I did, and Macarion was out of line. Therefore I submit that I did not clearly "edit war". peace... (also did you see my comment to your remarks below, and also Carol's?) Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You still seem to be unclear on the significance of the chain of events as it relates to edit warring and the consensus process, so I will attempt to clarify where you (and STS) went wrong. When Swarm reverted STS for the second time on 7-17 with an edit summary that advised STS to take it to Talk, the dispute began and discussion on the talk page was started. All reverting on this issue should've stopped at that point until a consensus in Talk for its inclusion was reached. As you probably know, it is incumbent on the editor who wishes to add controversial material, which has been reverted, to gain consensus for it first before re-adding it. USER:albacore then violated that by putting the link back while discussion was underway. Swarm then properly reverted it and again advised that the dispute be discussed in Talk by saying "it is seriously inappropriate to keep adding this without answering the clear justification for removal on the talk page". Then you, Hashem sfarim, decide a few hours later on 7-19 to improperly revert again, saying "it's been discussed, and there is some justification...see my response in Talk", as if the fact that you discussed it in talk settled the matter. Discussion continued with no consensus reached when on 7-30 USER:macarion again properly removed the link which was improperly put back by you earlier - an edit summary would've been nice, but it was clear to all why it was done anyway. STS then continued this disruptive editing by again re-adding the link (without an edit summary) ignoring the fact that still no consensus had been reached. This was then properly reverted by Chronie for the same reason as the other reverts up to that point, after which STS again improperly put it back. Seeing that there was no clear consensus in Talk for the link's inclusion (which was echoed by RxS's comment below), I then followed protocol by again reverting STS's improper revert, repeating Swarm's original admonishment that the issue should be resolved in Talk before re-adding this highly contentious link to the article. You then show up to again improperly revert while saying "this has already been discussed quite extensively on the talk page...and there've been enough valid reasons to keep this link in...sources and references regarding this exist...stop edit-warring over this please" - apparently oblivious to the fact that you were the one engaging in edit warring, while apparently asserting that you, Hashem Sfarin, have unilaterally decided that there has been enough discussion, and that you, Hashem Sfarin, have decided which reasons presented were "valid" and which were not, therefore giving you the right to circumvent the consensus process and reinstate the disputed link. After reverting you and pointing out to you that this matter has been been brought up at WP:DRN at 04:32 on 8-1, you ignore this and again put back the contentious link at 16:13, the inclusion of which is still being debated there(here) and remains unresolved. I hope you can see by this that after the issue was brought up in talk on 7-17, and certainly when the issue was raised at DRN on 8-1, continuing to add the link after those dates without clear consensus at either place to do so is in violation of WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, which states: "Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution." WP:TALKDONTREVERT also states: "The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition/change/removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions."

Hopefully, you and STS will learn from your mistakes here and avoid being blocked in the future for this kind of disruptive behavior. If not, well, you've been warned. Cheers Shirtwaist ☎ 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can use "including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." for controversial stuff. There are thousands of subjects that are peripherally related. I can think of a lot of semi related subjects, so there needs to be a way to sort through them. Reliable sources is the way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean that you regard the McBride quote as unreliable? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a real case for inclusion here. There's a fair bit of WP:SYNTH going on here. I also agree with the above comment, controversial inclusions need to be supported by more than just " peripherally related". Even at that, there are no RS that firmly link this and MWWS so the association is a little POV (in addition to WP:SYNTH. I know there may be some opinion pieces on this but you need to be careful with those, especially in BLP's RxS (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And, as I look at the talk page I don't see anything like a consensus to include it. It should be removed until consensus is reached. RxS (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, as I said, what you and others are failing to grasp is that this very notion of MWWS is basically a theory and opinion to begin with. So it doesn't matter that this thing was brought up in "opinion pieces"...because that's the nature of the "syndrome" in the first place. A hypothesis. The point is that it's been brought up ENOUGH to warrant a simple See also link. As SmashTheState said, all you have to do is google the words "Cayle Anthony" along with "missing white woman", and see what comes up, to see how this has been something mentioned by experts and journalists, and the arguable relevance. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If MWWS is so theoretical, subject to opinion, and so bereft of WP:RS that all anyone trying to put it in can find to support its use is an op-ed piece...maybe we should avoid it altogether. To quote WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion". I assume this also holds true for "See also" sections.Shirtwaist ☎ 05:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but then are you saying that the "MWWS" Wikipedia article should be "avoided" as ever being a See also wiki link on any other WP article? Because of the nature of the "syndrome" being an opinion or theory. I don't know. I was just making the point that simply because it was found on some "opinion pieces" does not matter much given the fact that this whole "MWWS" is an "opinion" in many ways to begin with. Also, earlier, my point is that the Caylee article DOES mention something (however brief) about "white woman", by McBride. It's an opinion by nature. Also, again, I did NOT revert "three times" with this. But only twice. I'm very careful to never violate "3RR". So I'm not sure why you said that. Maybe you mis-read it, and counted SmashTheState's revert also with mine. But I'm not him. Anyway, I don't like this "syndrome". I just know that it HAS been brought up by quite a few in the media and in psychology etc. I don't know if it's honest to simply ignore that. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying MWWS is a vernacular term with little or no solid RS to support it or verify it that I can see. So why should any article link to something as tenuous as that, much less an article where nobody can find an RS that links its subject directly to MWWS?

As for 3RR, see my response above. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My response to that is basically two-fold. One...It's debatable whether those sources are "RS" or not. It seems to be based on an interpretive thing about "opinion". It could be argued that in a sense they are reliable sources, to a decent extent. And the nature of MWWS is "opinion" anyway. But also, number two, something that Smash has brought up. In a See also wiki link WHERE EXACTLY DOES THERE HAVE TO DOGMATICALLY BE A "RELIABLE SOURCE" SOMEHOW INVOLVED WITH THAT NECESSARILY? That something is linked in the See Also appendix isn't a claim of any kind except that it has some kind of relationship to the material in the article and may be of interest to those who are interested in the article subject. It is not a claim that you, personally, are a racist. It is not even a claim that the hysterics around the Anthony case are the result of MWWS. Only that a significant number of people regard the Anthony case as being an example of MWWS. That there are those who do so has been amply proven. Hashem sfarim (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to note I also heard this concept (if not the exact phrase) mentioned on two or three different cable stations during various discussions of this case, so it's definitely a concept that's out there and relevant for the see also and/or a sentence or two in the publicity section. (And glad to see outside editors are coming by DRN and opining!!) CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Couple of things. First, please don't yell, some of us are sensitive to use of the caps keys. My take is that everything in WP needs to be verifiable in reliable sources, even if it isn't directly cited. Now, some of you are arguing that op ed pieces are not reliable sources. That's not really true, in that an op ed piece by an acknowledged authority can certainly be reliable for statements relating to their field. If Hawking writes a blog or editorial column for the NYTimes about the history of scones, that's not a reliable source, but if he does so in regard to quantum mechanics, that's a reliable source. I suggest that since MWWS is about how the media focusses their attention on crimes carried out against certain types of people, opinions expressed by news professionals published by reliable news outlets would be reliable enough to justified a see also link.

Also, I took a look and some of the see also links are unneeded, for example, links to people involved in the trial are better made in the body of the article rather than the see also section. The main questions governing see also sections are relevance and number of links. The bar for relevance is pretty low, since the purpose of the see also links is to suggest additional reading on topics that are related, but not relevant enough to include in the body. So all that is required is to show that there's some reasonable linkage, and I think there is, for example this article, and a piece by a media critic posted on an NPR blog, which does not mention Caylee by name, does link her murder to MWWS. And this op ed piece by a someone who served on a community editorial board for a local gannett publication. The McBride quote doesn't cut it for me, but any one of the three sources above meets the relatively low bar for an RS for a see also link for me. But that's just my opinion. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Just one more piece of bureaucratic background: In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults in September, 2006, a case in which the editor in question was among other things accused of edit warring over inclusions in a See also section, the Arbitration Committee made a finding of principle that, "Internal links in a 'See also' section need only be of related interest." and for various reasons rejected an alternate statement of principle that "'See also' sections should contain directly relevant material, and should not be used to make arguments or points." The current "peripherally related" MoS formulation in WP:ALSO was adopted, I believe, in June, 2008, without any discussion that I can find. I remain of the opinion that relatedness, per se, is not needed and that "of related interest" is enough. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very useful information. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Two things - this proposal was evenly split 3 to 3, not exactly a "rejection", and what exactly does "of related interest" mean? Shirtwaist ☎ 03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

See the top of the page, in this particular case it appears that a majority was 6, rather than a simple majority, so I think it is fair to say that it was a rejection of point 6. Point 5 seems to be a clear majority. My point is that there are reliable sources establishing a connection between this particular case and MWWS, enough to support a line in the article itself that the case has been discussed as an example of MWWS. I believe TransporterMan's point is that the MOS and the cited arbitration suggest that sourcing for see also links are not required. Thus far it appears that you have been arguing that the external link should not be included because there are no reliable sources for it, but it appears that there are, and that they are not required in any case by the MOS.

I would take "of related interest" to mean that some significant number of people would find the material in the linked article to be of interest as they read the linking article. I think that the fairly large number of google hits, over 10k, on '"Caylee Anthony" and "missing white woman syndrome"', particularly the coverage in news outlets, and op ed pieces establish that there is "related interest". But again, these are just my opinions. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically speaking, 3 "oppose" and 3 "support" of point 6 is neither a rejection nor acceptance, but that's beside the point.

In any case, the argument put forward by others, which I agree with, that controversial inclusions like this one need to be supported by more than just "peripherally related" as stated in MOS, is a valid one. I've already stated my views on what constitutes an RS in this case so I won't repeat myself. My opinion of what "related interest" means differs from yours in that the two subjects must be connected in a significant way to each other, other than the appearance of the words "white woman" in both. A "See also" link is basically telling the reader that the link has enough relevance to the subject of the article they're reading to justify its inclusion. I'd rather not rely on some op-ed writer's opinion of how Cayley Anthony is an actual example of "MWWS", which in itself is a vague and unquantified vernacular term. As others have said, using such sources as that for info like this is not a problem - if all the other "syndromes" describing the media fascination with this case are also listed along with MWWS. The result would probably be a "battle of the op-ed pieces", but incorporating that stuff into the body of the article, instead of sticking it in the "See also" section, would better serve the article by neutralizing the MWWS bias created by only having MWWS in "See also". Shirtwaist ☎ 12:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are some editors on this article who haven't figured out that Consensus does NOT trump policy, including even obvious BLP violations that have to be fought over. Sigh.... So something like this that is in a somewhat gray area are even more difficult to deal with. I think the POV for some may be that Casey's death is some cosmic message (or similar event of importance) that can't be sullied by any allusion to what many see as a racist media emphasis on the disappearances/deaths of white children/women. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Of course it does. WP:Consensus is policy. In the context here, linking MMWS is a slam on Anthony and we shouldn't do it. Gerardw (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(insert) To clarify, consensus of a few editors highly involved in the article, if they ignore all input from visiting editors or various noticeboards, doesn't trump obvious policy as communicated by those other editors. (Not as sexy as the short version.) Sometimes there are gray areas, sometimes an issue is more clear. The arguments below make me think it is clear this should at least be in See also, though a sentence or two in text to explain it would make even more sense. It's not a BLP issue because it's an analysis of media/public reaction to Caylee's disappearance, not a claim of something Casey has done without any WP:RS, which abound ad absurdum. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(insert)If we paraphrase the above as 'The consensus of the greater Wikipedia community trumps the consensus of highly involved editors,' we're in agreement. Given the above reasoning I concur with the inclusion. Gerardw (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Several points:

• Nuujinn is correct #1. In the context of the arbitration decision, they rejected inclusion of point 6 in their final decision and approved inclusion of point 5, on the basis that a majority found that point 5 was a more appropriate statement of WP policy than point 5, point 5 was therefore included in their final decision, point 6 was not.
• Nuujinn is correct #2. "Related interest" means only that people who read one article might find the other one interesting because of some kind of similarity. Per MoS, the degree of similarity can become relevant if there are a disproportionate number of see also links, but when there are only a few links, as here, the only test is whether or not they are utterly unrelated.
• I recommend this dispute be evaluated by an uninvolved neutral and be closed in favor of retention of the "See also" link at this time. Everything that can be said has been said. My evaluation is (a) that there is sufficient similarities in subject to retain the link, (b) that even though verifiability is not needed for the addition of a see also link that there is, indeed, some degree of verifiability available, and (c) if the opinions given at the article talk page and on this page are analyzed that there is a consensus in favor of inclusion of the link of about 6 or 7 in favor to about 3 opposed. Since any one of those three reasons, (a)-(c), would justify inclusion of the link, my recommendation is that this matter be closed in favor of retention of the link.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think what some people are missing here is that even if something is allowed by policy, it does not mean it's mandated. It still has to get consensus (when it's challenged). In this case, the see also link may or may not be justified by policy but it doesn't matter if you can't get a consensus for inclusion. There are enough reasonable arguments on both sides, but there's not an agreement that it should be added. RxS (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect. Policy is the standing consensus of the community as a whole and if it allows something, then it is allowed. To disallow that thing, either the policy must be changed (which cannot be done through local consensus) or an IAR local exception to that policy must be made. That requires the formation of a consensus to make that local exception, but the policy to allow it stands until and unless the consensus to make a local exception comes together. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If an edit is not specifically allowed or disallowed by policy, then a challenge is, indeed, enough to put it into question. A mere challenge is also enough to require an unsourced assertion in an article to either be reliably sourced or removed under WP:BURDEN and enough to cause a speedy deletion or non-BLP prod nomination to be rejected, but it's not enough to put an edit which is either specifically permitted or specifically prohibited by policy into question without an IAR local exception. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC) PS: I'd like to clarify that when I said that if "an edit is not specifically allowed or disallowed by policy, then a challenge is, indeed, enough to put it into question," that that's a broad practical summary, not a statement of policy. A challenge to such an edit only puts it into question to the point that its retention does not justify an edit war over it. That is, if a challenger abandons the challenge it does not mean that the challenged edit must still be removed if consensus for its retention cannot be obtained. That is unlike, for example, a challenge under WP:BURDEN which requires the unsourced assertion to be sourced or removed even if the original challenger does not follow up on the challenge. (And before you ask, yes I can tell you how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, too.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Guru Josh

• Guru Josh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The page in question is there for details about the person known as Guru Josh aka Paul Dudley Walden, for the uninformed he wrote a song called "Infiniry" in 1990 which then in 2008 was re-released to massive commercial success. The issue is that the 2008 version was released by 3 people working as "Guru Josh Project" which disbanded as a group in 2009. (see http://www.gurujoshproject.com/ for proof of disbanding). The issue that has arisen is that one of the previous members has been masquerading as Guru Josh falsely. Despite numerous edits by myself and others, a user specifically keeps revisiting and adding false refferences to a spin off band under a similar name trying to despertaley grab visitors from Guru Josh to their new venture.

It reached such a stage whereby Guru Josh took one of the previous members to court for trying to falsely register the name "Guru Josh Project" on his own without the knowledge or consent of the other members, Guru Josh won the case, which goes on in detail as to how this previous member has repeatedly tried to pass himself off as Guru Josh.

Full legal transcript and court ruling here http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-find/t-challenge-decision-results/o12511.pdf

This same member has visited Guru Josh's page now some 5 or 6 times in 2 days trying desperately to vandalise the page and add redirects to his 'new band' under an almost too similar name.. this vandal needs blocking and ideally the page locking for a while until such time as all comments have been verified.

A better solution yet would be to lock the page for admin only edits, whereby any changes that need making need to be sent to admin for verification purposes before posting is allowed, to stop the repeated vandalism attacks.

As a seperate issue, I also tried to add an image of the Artist to the Wikipage, unfortunately the bot deleted it and despite my best intentions I cant get the image re.instated, even though the photo is from the artists own photo gallery from the press pack, and can easily be confirmed as him by doing a quick google search.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Dazperkz (talk · contribs)
• Zhardoum (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

unable to contact Dazperkz directly, plus as his obvious intention is to cause harm and damage to Guru Josh, it is probably best handled via resolution.

• How do you think we can help?

ideally Dazperkz needs blocking and the webpage locked for admin edits only, whereby any new changes to the page have to be vetted first by an admin for authencity.

Zhardoum (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As i've stated below, i Dazperkz have only commented with true facts Zhardoum has been commenting on TM proceedings that are still on going and really have no relevance to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Guru Josh Discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

You didn't contact the other disputant. Your really need to do that Hasteur (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he will listen, he has already been blocked on wikipedia once, I posted on this page as a way to find amicable solution to this problem, I do not believe that me contacting him will do anything at all to ensure a solution, I would like you to read through the facts and decide on how best to proceed, remember he has already been ordered by the courts to stop and is still continuing, so I doubt a well worded memo from a Wikipedia writer will cause him to 'cease and desist'.

- Zhardoum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhardoum (talk • contribs) 15:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, according to [1] they have not been blocked. Posting on a page in all caps and bolding gives the impression of shouting. Furthermore, your supposition (and explicit linking) of the other disputant with a real world identity is bordering on a violation of WP:OUTING. Even if outside legal entities have ordered the real world identity to stop using the name, that is not enforceable here on Wikipedia. I have looked closely at the editor's very short history here and see a potentially misguided editor. The fact that you are refusing to engage the editor in any version of conversation about the articles suggests that either there's some sort of axe to grind here. Please make consider backing off this page as you are displaying significant ownership of the article and it's bordering on the level of a undisclosed conflict of interest. Hasteur (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No axe, I think if you compare the two editors in question, then one has added details with relevant links and references to back them up and the other has added links to another band infringing on the Artists intellectual property rights which have repeatedly been removed by others.

The very fact of me raising this here as a dispute must surely on its own merit preclude the option of being tainted as an editor, I am most happy for other editors to add comments as long as those comments don't border on vandalism, As to the capitals used in the post, that was due to copying and pasting using a different font.. and shall be remedid now.

Zhardoum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhardoum (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Legal issues resolved or unresolved in real life have no bearing on Wikipedia unless a) reliable sources like newspapers have reported on them or b) the Wikimedia Foundation has intervened. To my knowledge, in this case neither has happened, so you can leave those details aside. The relevant policy is WP:LEGAL.
• Court documents cannot be used unless to 'augment' a published reliable secondary source (like a newspaper). This is especially true if the ruling involves living people. See WP:BLPPRIMARY
• Both editors clearly have a WP:Conflict of interest and should take extra care not to let their personal involvement or interests influence the article.
• Otherwise, that leaves a regular old content dispute about adding an external link to a band with disputed motives. So: 1) Are there any published reports about this dispute from independent non-judicial sources?; 2) Note that including a link to a related band does not imply approval, only relatedness; 3) the external link could have a note such as 'Band B, a spinoff from Guru Josh started by member x'; 4) External links should primarily be about the main article subject, not related subjects (that's what [See Also] is for). See WP:EL for external link policy; 5) All editors should try and discuss issues cooperatively and without resorting to legal language or assumptions/accusations about others' motives; 6) Note that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion of bands or for advancing court rulings or for protecting intellectual property (unless covered by WP:COPYRIGHT policy). We just write articles based on good published sources. And we link to useful, clearly defined content. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am more than happy to stop posting on this topic, unfortunately the other named writer repeatedly keeps changing the page about the Artist to constantly refer back to his own music group which as mentioned contravenes more rules than I care to mention.

Can I strongly suggest then, that the page be locked and only Admin be allowed to make changes, as this will both stop changes by myself and any others.. and to which seems like a perfectly good solution. If I am biased as you put it, then surely my requesting the page by only editted by admin would be the ideal solution. Zhardoum (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Locking everyone out of editing is not the solution. Now that it's been established that attempting to insert the external link is promotional, there are other tools (like reversion) to prevent Wikipedia from being used as a advertisment venue. Hasteur (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

now its gone laughable, now we have admins posting unfactual posts on the page. to whit "The Guru Josh Project still gigs worldwide..." as allowed and posted by 'Onewhohelps' please show me any evidence to prove this.. This is the whole point here, this is false, time and time again i have posted correct and verifiable documentation to prove my posts, yet now admins are coming along and adding posts with no proof whatsoever. Really, this is a total waste of space, if you as admins cannot read the information given to you and still add posts that go against everything that has been proven to you, what is the point of wikipedia? you might as well close up shop now. Seriously, I have given you more evidence that 80% of wikipedia pages ever get to see, yet you allow vandalism of a page without any proof whatsoever and then go so far as to complain to the person armed with the documents of fact.

Are you really going to sit back and now say that this case has been handled correctly, I request an admin of high standing review all aspects of this case make an informed judgement because right now it just appears biased against people who come armed with the truth. Zhardoum (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you want policies and guidelines...

1. Bold, revert, discuss - You haven't opened a single thread on the article's talk page expressing why the other artists formerly working as a partnership should not be allowed to attribute themselves in a way that was allowed in the Partnership Contract
2. WP:CIVIL - Your edit summaries of reversion and postings here are not compatible with editing in a collegial manner.
3. WP:BITE - Your actions against a relativeley new editor (and as yourself) are significantly harmful
4. WP:3R - You are as of this posting sitting on the 3 Revert line. If you undo one more change on the page you can be blocked for edit warring.
5. WP:DEADLINE - You haven't given the other editor an opportunity to speak, yet want action 'now. From what I can tell, this is not a violation of WP:BLP so we can take our time to consider the issue.

This board is not staffed by administrators. Pleas review the purpose of the board again and understand why requesting "an admin of high standing" is not appropriate here. You've been given the advice of 2 editors in good standing.

This constitutes the warning to ceace Off-topic or non-productive discussions can be closed after due warning, as the board is designed to diffuse disputes, not escalate them. Hasteur (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apologise as i am new to wiki but the comments i have made are 100% true and factual and i do not intend to cause Mr Walden any problems, i only want the article to be factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The facts are being twisted by Zhardoum to cause personal damage, the TM proceeding are still in process by appeal due to certain evidence being dishonest. As for the Guru Josh Project still gigging worldwide, this is 100% fact, Darren Bailie of Guru Josh Project played in Brazil on the 30th July 2010 and the week previous in Austria. He also has many gigs booked for the future as does Anders Nyman. [2] please select pictures on this site then scroll down to the 22/23 July 2011 to confirm that the Guru Josh project are still gigging and will continue to gig as they are also on the sites roster for future bookings. These facts are true. In all due respect I suggest you get your facts correct before making incorrect changes to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazperkz (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is improper to reveal the "real world" identities of other editors, to make negative statements about living persons without support from high quality reliable sources, or to make legal threats or implied legal threats. I have removed the offending material from this discussion. Do not restore it. Only discuss edits, not editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Rutabaga

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

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The language found in the version of the article under the heading "Halloween" is under discussion by myself and Gandydancer (talk · contribs). We have tried to discuss this on the talk page (here), but things seem to be going nowhere. We previously discussed nearly identical language back in 2009 (here) and even got a WP:3O with User:GB fan stepping in to agree the section, as written by Gandydancer, was excessive in its detail of the description of the holiday. I contend the current description, favored by Gandydancer, provides too much detail on irrelevancies unrelated to rutabagas, such as a description of the progression of the holiday and what children who dressed up were called (and the derivation of the name). I proposed a pared-down version on the talk page that stuck to points immediately related to the use of rutabagas in the holiday festivities, but was shot down. Gandydancer will not accept any alternative other than his/her preferred language. Our reverts are getting out of hand and inching closer to WP:3RR. Assistance beyond a WP:3O would be appreciated. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Gandydancer (talk · contribs)
• Rkitko (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussed on the talk page in 2009, again now (which seems to be going nowhere), and received a WP:3O during the 2009 discussion.

• How do you think we can help?

Assist in the next step of discussion after a third opinion; review the current Halloween section and provide your own opinions.

Rkitko ^(talk) 23:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Rutabaga discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Coffee Party USA

• Coffee Party USA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The current version of the article in question makes little mention of any third party's perspective on the political movement's political orientation. I have made edits [3], [4] to the article to rectify the lack of third party perspective on Coffee Party USA but they've all been reverted by User:Xenophrenic who has gone on record repeating Coffee Party USA's self-published descriptions of itself as non-partisan (Coffee Party USA's self-published descriptions of itself as non-partisan can be found here: [5], [6]) thereby violating WP:NPOV by stating an opinion/uncontested assertions about Coffee Party USA as a fact. The user has gone on to further write that he/she has yet to see "any reliable source describe the Coffee Party as any one of these [progressive, liberal and pro-government] adjectives" even though sources from established news sources such as The Telegraph, Politico, Post The Washington post, CBS and The Atlantic Wire) have all used such adjectives to describe Coffee Party USA.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Galafax (talk · contribs)
• Xenophrenic (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussed on talk page and asked for a WP:3O] on this issue.

• How do you think we can help?

Given the vested interest of user Xenophrenic in editing this article, assistance here concurrently with the third opinion would be appreciated.

Galafax (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Coffee Party USA discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.