Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"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
Rafida	In Progress	Albertatiran (t)	35 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours
Yasuke	Closed	Theozilla (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days,	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days,
Patrick Treacy	Closed	Aareod (t)	1 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 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 15:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:ResellerRatings

– New discussion.

Filed by ZeroShadows on 09:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• ZeroShadows (talk · contribs)
• Techimo (talk · contribs)
• 166.170.37.25 (talk · contribs)
• 71.235.154.73 (talk · contribs)
• Zamaster4536 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am attempting to include well sourced data for a "Company Rating" and "Criticism" section of the ResellerRatings article. The data was originally provided by 71.235.154.73 who was involved in an edit war with Techimo over a year ago. 71.235.154.73 reappeared recently and added better sourced, more neutral data, which Techimo and 166.170.37.25 reverted, citing non-NPOV. His reversions were then reverted by another editor, citing that the original statements were well sourced. 166.170.37.25 then sent a message to that user, and his reverts were undone. Techimo then requested article protection by user CambridgeBayWeather who obliged, I believe, without actually reading the content.

The changes have been discussed ad nauseum on Talk:ResellerRatings and consensus cannot be reached. In summary, I believe a "Criticism" or similarly themed section is appropriate for this article. Peer entities such as Angie's List, Better Business Bureau, and Trustpilot all have "Criticism" sections. There are valid, reliably sourced criticism of ResellerRatings which are appropriate for inclusion, to make the article well rounded and less like company PR. The data to be included describes the criticisms of the company and the actions the company took to address them. I believe that's fair.

I believe the article already sufficiently describes the pro aspects of the business. Con aspects should be included to make the article more accurate and well rounded. A simple Google search reveals that there is quite a bit of criticism of this company, and the data provided reports on some of those aspects, from a reliable source.

This is all well documented on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've discussed this with Techimo on the talk page. He is unwilling to compromise. I've discussed this with CambridgeBayWeather on his talk page, when I requested unprotection. The latter opted to bow out of the request and discussion, referring me to take my request up on the article's talk page. Historically, Techimo has removed anything from the article which he considers unflattering about this company. He also started the article on the company's founder, Scott Wainner. This points to a COI, in my opinion.

How do you think we can help?

Settle the dispute as to whether the data is suitable for inclusion.

Summary of dispute by Techimo

ZeroShadows is defending content contributed to the ResellerRatings page by 71.235.154.73, an edit warring IP who posted the same (or versions of) critical attacks (citing user generated, not reliable sources) no less than 103 times in December 2014. This user then began another tirade of posts under the the username NotTechimo, for which he was blocked from Wikipedia for impersonating (me) by Mr._Stradivarius. The edit war continued from 32.211.179.232, so the ResellerRatings page was protected for 6 months until August 2015 by CambridgeBayWeather.

Within hours of the Jan 21, 2016 edits by 71.235.154.73, ZeroShadows contributed several edits to the ResellerRatings and Better Business Bureau pages.

ZeroShadows proposed "Company Rating" section sources are all user generated opinions and are not reliable sources per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

ZeroShadows' proposed section entitled "Criticism" has numerous issues:

• The user is editorializing in a disparaging way and the tone is not disinterested (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). For instance, he uses the phrase "drastically increased" despite that language not being in the cited source.
• The user characterized the site as "removing reviews", even though one of the site's employees is quoted as saying that the removal had to do only with reviews that were solicited by merchants who subscribed and then cancelled, not reviews submitted by customers without prompting.
• The user overstates this article as being important in this history of the site. The article interviewed 3 out of what appears to be many thousands of online merchants who subscribe(d) to ResellerRatings.
• The user omits the positive commentary in the article from 3 merchants who raved about the site. e.g. "Jose Prendes, CEO of wellness and beauty products seller PureFormulas.com, which will have 2012 sales of $30 million, says ResellerRatings is the best of the four reviews services it uses...", and "Fat Brain Toys" says... “The Merchant Member program is very turnkey and easy to launch. Provided you’re already taking care of your customers, it’s a great way to let the world know about it". A factual summary of this praise should be included with any criticism.

Ultimately, companies routinely increase rates, and in the case of ResellerRatings, a b2b platform where consumers pay nothing and merchants optionally pay to participate, raising rates over time should be considered in the same light as any other businesses that adjust rates over time: largely immaterial to all except those few (in this case) directly impacted (of which, clearly ZeroShadows was, hence the heated emotional drive to insert the negative editorial commentary). Such "ordinary course of business" practices make for very uninteresting and immaterial content for such a notable encyclopedic reference as Wikipedia. For instance, there are dozens of articles about Netflix (b2c) raising rates for millions of people (consumers, in that instance) with a resultant stock price decline for a time, and none of that is even mentioned in the Wikipedia article save for a sentence or two such as "The price increase took effect immediately for new subscribers, but will be delayed for two years for existing members". Many customers "fumed" about the Netflix rate increase in 2011, but it was as irrelevant to Netflix's overall story as it is to ResellerRatings' overall 15 year history. Of note, there is no Criticism section in the Netflix page, despite quite a lot of press covering Netflix rate increases. No editor found that a Criticism section was warranted there: why is it warranted here?

Applying the Netflix logic here, one sentence presented in a disinterested tone in the history section, such as "ResellerRatings raised prices for some merchants in 2013." with a citation pointing to the Internet Retailer article might be the extent of what's appropriate, but I still disagree that it's relevant or useful info for anyone to add that and the addition of a Criticism section is wholly unwarranted. ZeroShadows' assertion that simply because some pages contain Criticism sections, that such a section is appropriate for this page or for all pages, is illogical. Certainly, the feedback from 3 online retailers interviewed for the cited source (compared to the thousands of merchants who are customers of ResellerRatings and the millions of consumers who have used the resource over the past 15 years) does not represent a sufficient level to suggest that there is a citable/sourceable preponderance of criticism about this company to warrant a Criticism section. Techimo (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Summary of dispute by 166.170.37.25

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 71.235.154.73

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:ResellerRatings discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate talk page discussion. The other registered editor has been notified. The unregistered editors have not been notified. The filing party is responsible for notifying the unregistered editors as well as the registered editor. This thread was previously opened about a week ago, and then closed due to lack of response by the parties. When this case is opened, after proper notice, the moderator will need to be aware that the case may again need to be closed if there is no response. (Since participation is voluntary, the case can go forward with less than all of the parties.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the unregistered parties. They already have notifications on their talk pages. I guess you need me to notify them again. Done. I was in the hospital last week and could not participate. I'm here now and ready. ZeroShadows (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolving the Above Dispute

As the moderating volunteer, I would like to open a calm discussion to attempt to resolve this dispute. Would ZeroShadows and Techimo please calmly state their side of the story? Joel.Miles925 (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joel. I'm not sure what else you would like me to state. I've pretty much covered it in the dispute description. Basically, I think the ResellerRatings article is not well rounded. Other editors have, over the years, attempted to include data about the company in a "Criticism" type section, and regardless of the information, it's always been removed by Techimo. The latest edits are well sourced and neutral in that they describe criticisms of the company and the steps the company took to resolve them. All of this is thoroughly documented on the talk page. Thanks! ZeroShadows (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see the "Summary of dispute by Techimo" section above where I provided a detailed summary of my side.Techimo (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the criticism section should not be added. I think that the best option here is to simply make the article read less like an advertisement. For instance, the first four paragraphs:

"ResellerRatings is a web-based business that solicits consumer reviews of online retailers. As of 29 June 2013, the site claimed 1,940,596 user-submitted reviews for 60,229 stores. Consumers use ResellerRatings to check the reputation of online stores before buying. The site also lists deals, special offers, and other sales currently being offered at listed stores, as well as a forum for discussion. ResellerRatings operates a freemium business model. Merchants can participate to receive certain features for free, and can subscribe for additional features. According to Google, the stars ratings within AdWords ads, powered by ResellerRatings (among other ratings sites), lift ad click-through rates by 17%. "Shopping Review" websites like ResellerRatings or Angie's List are immune from civil liability prosecution for what its reviewers write due to the Internet Communications Decency Act protections which shields websites from what their users do or say."

The article is clearly poorly written. I think before anyone adds a section, criticism or otherwise, the article should be rewritten to comply with wikipedia NPOV policy. I would suggest that the the section above be rewritten. I very much believe that the claims by Techimo that he is not affiliated with ResellerRatings are suspect at best. Please fix the POV issues and then consider expanding the article. Techimo, do not revert any edits that ZeroShadows makes regarding POV. ZeroShadows: please make your edits constructive. If either of you would like to say anything, please say it within 48 hours. Thank you. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. If you'll indulge me for a moment, let's assume the sections have been rewritten already. Can you help me understand if, then, a "Criticism" section would still be inappropriate? I'm just unclear on this, when other organizations which serve the same purpose as ResellerRatings (BBB, Angie's List, Trustpilot, etc.) all have Criticism sections. ZeroShadows (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that as soon as the NPOV issues are corrected, the criticism section would be fine. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

DRN coordinator's note: This is somewhat unusual procedurally. This case was closed by the initial volunteer, Joel.Miles925, and then reopened by volunteer Robert McClenon after one party expressed dissatisfaction on the DRN talk page as to how the case was initially handled. The other active party has now also expressed dissatisfaction on the talk page and has agreed to continue mediation here with a new volunteer. In light of the objections of the parties, Joel will be deemed to have relinquished control of the case by closing it and Robert has agreed to take the case provided that the parties accept certain conditions set out by Robert on the talk page. Such conditional offers by a volunteer are acceptable under the "Control of mediation" section of the Mediation Policy. The parties' continuation in the process here will be deemed to indicate acceptance of Robert's conditions and Robert may close the case or withdraw as mediator if those conditions are violated (though he may, of course, give one or more additional chances before doing so). If Joel wishes to contest his removal as lead volunteer, he may do so on the DRN talk page. Since IP editors were listed above, Robert should give consideration to whether additional efforts to include them are needed, but I do not mean to imply anything either pro or con on that issue by making this comment. Finally, I would note that the "do not archive until" date has been reset to two weeks from today, an action with which I wholly agree. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

• Note - Neither of the IPs has edited within the past month. One of them is blocked. The other one has probably shifted, which is one of the problems with unregistered editors. I will check to see whether there have been any recent edits by unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note - Will User:ZeroShadows and User:Techimo both please state whether they are willing to resume moderated discussion subject to the restrictions mentioned on the talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Erwin Rommel#About_the_revert_of_my_1_Feb_2016_correction

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by 209.179.22.107 on 00:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Erwin Rommel#About the revert of my 1 Feb 2016 correction (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rklawton (talk · contribs)
• Gorthian (talk · contribs)
• 209.179.86.123 (talk · contribs)
• 209.179.22.107 (talk · contribs)
• Camino 2-1-2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On 1 Feb 2015 I made a good faith edit to the Erwin Rommel article where I corrected four factual errors and included one footnote. Since the article is semi-protected and my contribution was from my IP address instead of a named account, my edit was pended and had to be approved before it went live. Later on 1 Feb, user Rklawton reverted it, with the rather condescending comment of, "Let's not provide readers with bad translations - especially when the German is both clear and linked." In fact my translations were correct, the German was NOT clear (hence my corrections), and the link is irrelevant, which Rklawton apparently doesn't know. On 2 Feb I politely asked RKLawton on the article Talk page why he reverted my edit. His answer was non responsive, referring me to his vague edit comment. Since I had made several corrections, i didn't know which one(s) he meant, which made it impossible for me to understand his point (especially since I had no errors). Since he was essentially unresponsive, I tried the edit again on 5 Feb. At this point another editor (not RKlevin) reverted it. Oddly, when Gorthian reverted it, he cited WP:BRD, even though his own action ran counter to that guideline. After that, RKLawton sent me a message to my Talk page (209.179.86.123) threatening to block me, again without showing any sign of willingness to discuss my edit. On 7 Feb I made another request to him to discuss it but as of this writing he has refused to do so.

I should add here that this isn't one of those abstract philosophical disputes involving shades of gray or it-depends-on-your-paradigm kind of problem. This is a rather simple factual dispute that should be resolved fairly easily if both parties can discuss it, the way Wikipedia's policies require editors to do.

Please note that that my edit was done as IP 209.179.86.123, and my IP address was subsequently changed to 209.179.22.107. To avoid any more possible confusion, I am using my account name of Camino 2-1-2 for the rest of this DRN.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Since Rklawton has refused to engage in a meaningful discussion there hasn't really been anything i could do.

How do you think we can help?

Get RKLawton to discuss the matter. Since this is a fairly basic question it shouldn't be that hard to reach a consensus, if he is willing to listen to the other side.

Summary of dispute by Rklawton

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

As noted in my edit summary, the IP provided several bad translations and I reverted them. The IP then demanded an explanation regardless of the fact that his/her edits and my edit summary made the problem self evident. I then left town for a week (and noted so accordingly) for a family funeral. The IP continues to make demands and behave belligerently rather than collegially. Rklawton (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gorthian

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Erwin Rommel happened to be listed on Articles with edits awaiting review, which I monitor infrequently; the latest edit had been "pending" for several hours, so I checked it out. From the edit summaries, it was clear there was a dispute between two editors. 209.179.86.123 had added material, Rklawton reverted it, then 209.179.86.123 had reverted it back. I saw it this way: 209.179.86.123 had been bold and added material, then had been reverted, so the next step was to discuss. I reverted 209.179.86.123, citing WP:BRD, and said "take it to the talk page".

I know almost nothing about the article or its subject, and I have no opinion on the material added. I don't think I'll be any use in a content dispute. But there's my bit of involvement.— Gorthian (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Erwin Rommel#About_the_revert_of_my_1_Feb_2016_correction discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - The filing party (an unregistered editor) has not listed themselves as a party to the case, and has not notified the other two editors. There has been discussion on the talk page. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors (and also to list themselves). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

 To DRN volunteers: I encouraged the filing party to create an account, so they could follow the case easier.--In veritas (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Does anyone know if we can bring in a third opinion about the above mentioned German translations? In veritas (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Filing IP has talked to me about creating an account soon, once that happens I will open this case. In veritas (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Moderation may start. The filing IP is now registered account Camino 2-1-2. Let's keep this civil and focused on the content. Since this seems to boil down to a difference in translation opinions, would each editor explain to me and each other, hopefully word by word, why they disagree with the other's translation? In veritas (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

First Statement by Camino 2-1-2 (formerly IP 209.179.86.123)

First off, I can't help but point out that in my request I wrote, "Hello, Rklawton, could you please explain...," and if that is to be considered demanding and belligerent, then I apologize. I had no idea anyone could consider it as such but I guess you learn something new every day. Since RKLawton even now refuses to explain what his objections are I guess I'll have to go through every one, starting at the bottom of my original edit and working my way up. (I assume that since he said nothing about the footnote I included he has no objections to that, but if he does, I hope he'll say something.)

I changed "Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH; German High Command)," to, "Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH; Army High Command)," as I thought including "German" was rather redundant, since no one would assume it was the French High Command (although, considering how ineptly the French conducted themselves, it does look like the German were directing the French forces.). But the High Command of what? The Navy? The Luftwaffe? Oh yes, it does include, "des Heeres," so I feel perfectly confident in translating that as "Army High Command". (Do you see how it's done RKLawton? You state exactly what you think is wrong and then explain why and how it should be changed.) If he challenges the veracity of that I hope he'll explain why.

Next we come to "Generalleutnant Heinz Guderian," which I changed to, "General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian". I hope RKLawton doesn't think this was a translation as I was simply correcting a factual mistake. Guderian was promoted to the higher rank in 1938 (October, I believe), which is in fact before the war even started.

My next change involved Erich von Manstein but that is now irrelevant. A subsequent rewrite of that paragraph sent Manstein to the cornfield and any issue with that one is now moot. This brings me to the last, and certainly not the least of these translation issues. Here I changed, "Rommel was promoted to Generalmajor on..." to, "Rommel was promoted to Generalmajor (Brigadier General) on..." In order to explain this one I would like to ask RKLaton to fill in the chart below, which will be instrumental in determining in what way we disagree on this point. All he need to do is copy the wikitable text (the part from "{| class=wikitable" and "|}", inclusive) to his answer space and fill in the empty boxes. I think doing that will be instrumental in resolving this remaining translation question.

US / German Officer Comparison Chart

Off. Desig	U.S.Rank	German Rank	Notes
O-6
O-7
O-8
O-9
O-10
O-11

Please let me know if there are any problems. __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Rommel's article is not the place for pedantics or lessons in German military rank. The correct and only translation for Generalmajor is Major General. The equivalent rank may be interesting for some readers and they can follow the link to the Generalmajor article if they want more information. Oddly enough, the Generalmajor article states that the US Army equivalent is also Major General. Rklawton (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ježica

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Grabyton on 11:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Ježica (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Grabyton (talk · contribs) Doremo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am trying to add content to Ježica page for one month, but user Doremo is deleting it every time. First he complained about my bad english and deleted everything. I agreed to correct my english. I corrected that, but again he deleted everything. He complained about my notes that I didn`t state. I corrected that too. Than he complained about what he thinks it`s unnecessary content. We agreed that I will wrote small adds in longer period so he will be able to correct my bad English and what is necessary. Since than we cooperated pretty good. Still he was changing a lot of my content, but I let him cause it was not significantly changed. Now again he became rougher and in my opinion, exceeded the bounds of acceptable. From his acts it is obvious that he has no knowledge about Ježica, he does not understand things about what I am writing and he has no interest in them, so he is keep deleting them, thinking he is right. Example: 1. bridge of Sava river branch was deleted three times cause he thought this is the bridge of Sava, which is mentioned in other title. But this bridge is far away from the first bridge and represents interesting information that Doremo deleted. 2. Russian Czar is famous Ježica inn. Everybody knows that building as part of Ježica even though it was part of Mala vas in the past. So he does not allow that Russian Czar is mentioned on Ježica page, cause it is already mentioned on Mala vas page. So if people would like to come and see Ježica and what is interesting there, they will miss famous Russian Czar, cause it is not mentioned on Ježica page. 3. List of cultural heritage: Bronze plate is on this list officially but not on wikipedia. Cause it is not allowed by Doremo that states that it can`t be mentioned because it is mentioned in upper content. He added bridge of Sava river branch to cultural heritage even though it is not mentioned as cultural heritage officially. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I talked to him on Talk:Ježica, I stated my opinion, but never succeeded. How do you think we can help? Stop him from deleting everything that people write, somehow. His acts look like he owns Wikipedia, let him get explanation that other people can write things and everything can not be deleted. Explain him that better than delete content is to improve it. Summary of dispute by Doremo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Grabyton has added welcome information to the article(s) in question, but it requires very heavy copyediting and tends to be repetitive (e.g., full paragraphs copy-pasted to multiple articles). He or she should be encouraged to continue making small additions (so that other editors can improve basic language errors) and to avoid copying information to multiple related articles or repeating information within articles. Doremo (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Talk:Ježica discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on 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.

Talk:Benjamin Disraeli

– New discussion.

Filed by 146.199.196.106 on 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• 146.199.196.106 (talk · contribs)
• SchroCat (talk · contribs)
• Martinevans123 (talk · contribs)
• Tim riley (talk · contribs)
• Mackensen (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute resolution request concerns a short section in the featured Benjamin Disraeli article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli), and particularly the sentence “In 1878, faced with Russian victories against the Ottomans, he worked at the Congress of Berlin to maintain peace in the Balkans and made terms favourable to Britain which weakened Russia, its longstanding enemy” at the end of the introduction. In my opinion, the ‘maintain peace in the Balkans’ statement misrepresents the actual consequences of Disraeli’s actions (for which I believe I provided adequate sources), and suggested instead ‘to establish terms favourable to Britain which weakened Russia, its longstanding enemy and led to the destabilisation of the Balkans’, which I believe to be true, based on the turn of events and publications from historians (predominantly Bulgarian). I tried to change that a few times but my suggestion was met with disagreement by several editors. We tried to clarify and explain our views on the article talk page, but to no avail. Realising that my wording might be considered a tad too harsh, I changed my edit to the 2.0 version: “In 1878, faced with Russian victories against the Ottomans, he worked at the Congress of Berlin to contain conflict in Europe and made terms favourable to Britain which weakened Russia, its longstanding enemy.” This suggestion was not accepted either.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None, I am following what was suggested by the other participants in this discussion, as witnessed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:146.199.196.106

How do you think we can help?

Since it would appear that we reached an impasse I would welcome any honest and objective contribution. Thank you!

Summary of dispute by 146.199.196.106 (not registered - Dimitar Popov)

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by SchroCat

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Martinevans123

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Tim riley

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Benjamin Disraeli discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. It is just barely enough discussion. However, there were three problems with this filing. First, the filing party has not notified the other editors. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors. This case cannot be opened until the other editors are notified and have an opportunity to respond. Second, one of the editors was not included in the list of parties. I have added them, but the filing party will have to notify them. Third, the filing party is an unregistered editor. While unregistered editors do have the privilege of editing Wikipedia, their participation in ongoing discussions such as DRN may be problematic because IP addresses change. Since the filing party has used a name, why don't they just register it as a user name? Some DRN volunteers will not open a case that has unregistered editors as participants. Other DRN volunteers will not open a case that is filed by an unregistered editor. For those reasons, I strongly encourage the filing party to register an account and add their new account to the list of parties, and also to notify the other parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Eminata Group

– New discussion.

Filed by Amvan2002 on 17:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Eminata Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Amvan2002 (talk · contribs)
• Ronz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This article contains the following sentence. “Eminata is chaired by Peter Chung, a man convicted in 1993 in California for defrauding students at a computer school he ran.” This sentence contains a defamatory term "convicted" which is not applicable given that it was a civil injunction. As you may know, in civil law, a judgment/injunction may be made against the defendant but it is different from a conviction which is applicable to criminal cases only. This is a dangerous entry as it harms the individual noted, and misinforms the layperson who may not know the difference between civil lawsuits and criminal charges. Similarly, when Mcdonald’s was sued for injuring Liebeck with hot coffee, the company (defendant) was ordered to pay $2.7 million to Liebeck. Now, this does not mean that the CEO of Mcdonald’s was convicted. (Liebeck v. Mcdonald's).

As you can see in the history page, I (Amvan2002) have tried to make edits on the page as the page is filled with outdated and misinformed entries. However, it has been difficult due to the Conflict of Interest policy as I am an employee of the company. A particular user, Ronz, has been reverting my changes without willing to collaborate to rectify the situation.

Below are the links of his “talk” page that shows my attempts to work with him with no success.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#Regarding_your_changes_on_the_Eminata_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#Eminata_Group_page_edits

Despite my efforts, the only response I received was:

“The solution is to provide sources. I've tagged the article as possibly being out of date. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)”

Although this was frustrating, I tried to accommodate his request by obtaining a clear criminal record check from Mr. Peter Chung, but I found out that “California Penal Code section 11142 prohibits you from giving your copy of your criminal record to an unauthorized third party.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I discussed with Ronz on his talk pages on several attempts, but he has not been receptive to my comments or arguments. He reverts my changes with simple remarks including "source required" and "violation of the COI policy"

How do you think we can help?

The individual noted (Peter Chung) is suffering damages because of this misleading entry claiming that he was "convicted." This is not even a matter of fact/false. This is a matter of a misuse of the term "conviction." Please pay attention to this matter to remove this entry.

Summary of dispute by Ronz

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Eminata Group discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been no discussion on the article talk page. There has been discussion on User talk:Ronz, but it appears to consist of one too long, difficult to read post by each editor. The filing party has not notified User:Ronz of this filing. I am not accepting or declining this case at this time. (It can't be accepted without notice to Ronz.) I am recommending that discussion go back to the article talk page. If discussion there is inconclusive, this noticeboard may be an appropriate venue in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross

– New discussion.

Filed by Sfarney on 08:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Rick Alan Ross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sfarney (talk · contribs)
• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• Collect (talk · contribs)
• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs)
• Jbhunley (talk · contribs)
• Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page is Rick Alan Ross. Ross himself is a long time advisor and advocate for content. His biography is defended by a group of editors, notably Ronz, Collect, Francis Schonken, and Jbhunley. The page now reads like resume for Ross, with a puff piece about his deprogramming career and advertisement of his current enterprise. But the subject of cult brainwashing and deprogramming is not accepted by scientific consensus. In a word, Ross is engaged in a pseudoscience. Ross was pleaded guilty to embezzling conspiracy, imprisoned for a year or so, and later exonerated by a judge. By vigilant reverts, the editors named above protect Ross's page from any mention of those facts. Thus Ross is enabled to use Wikipedia as an infomercial for his business as an expert on cult brainwashing and his commercial enterprise in "exit counseling". Editors from that group have stalked me through a series of related web pages and reverted my edits on related subjects.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Presented my logic, introduced many fully sourced edits over the last few weeks.

How do you think we can help?

Ross's friends argue always "consensus" and "BLP". Wider forum may recognize that this is misapplication of the Wiki policy. No other controversial figures get a free ride on Wikipedia to advertise their web pages, businesses, and philosophies, particularly when they are based on pseudoscience.

Summary of dispute by Ronz

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Collect

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Note: I was not directly notified of this DR (learning of it only by virtue of having way-too-many pages on my watchlist). The intent of the DR, apparently, is to allow one editor to "own" the BLP despite the simple fact that the editor has not obtained consensus at any level whatsoever for his/her "required edits" on this or related articles. The editor has a marked interest in Scientology articles, which was the subject in the past of a noted ArbCom case, and I submit that this posting here is not only ill-fated ab initio, but unfortunately is likely to result in imposition of the case-authorized sanctions on that editor. Collect (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Francis Schonken

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Jbhunley

@Sfarney: Please provide diffs of the edits you tried to insert so something concrete can be discussed. The consensus on the talk page is that you have been violating BLP, for which you have beeen warned, and trying to insert OR by using sources which do not discuss Ross as well as being more concerned about WP:RGW than NPOV. You have consistantly pushed to insert negative material in the article and related articles. Your most recent interactions on the talk page have been combative rather than collaborative. I can dig up diffs for all of what I have said but WP:AE is the proper venue for examining your behavior not DRN.

I have said repeatedly, for more months than you have been on the page, that the article tends towards a positive POV but the crap you keep trying to insert is designed to create a negative POV not NPOV. TL;DR - your participation on the Ross article is a net negative and has forced editors like me who have been trying to move the article away from ROSSPOV towards NPOV to deal with your over the top POV pushing rather than move the article to NPOV.

You also need to notify the editors you have named above and include Rick Alan Ross among the parties - he is by far the most prolific contributor to discussions. Jbh^Talk 11:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• The talk page archives fast so the DRN volunteer ahould glance through the most recent archives [1] [2] to get an idea of what has been going on. Jbh^Talk 12:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• @Robert McClenon: if Sfarney does not provide the specific content they wish to change - usually best done by diffs of the disputed edit but typing the proposed text here is fine - then there is nothing to discuss here. I have no problem escalating this to AE however Bishonen has already said she will take action the next time he violates BLP or pushes POV so I am inclined to leave the matter with her. As to the archiving I have no idea how to change that but the material exists in the linked archive and can be read there and no active topic will be archived so it seems a non-issue unless I am missing something.

  The edit which seems to have set this off is some mass of text about brainwashing [3] that does not mention the subject of the article at all and looks to be an attempt to rehash what was discussed here [4] but it has not been brought up here or on the article talk so who knows. @Sfarney: - propose specific edits or diffs of specific edits you wish to discuss. Until you do so I decline DR because there is no content to discuss here. Jbh^Talk 18:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

talk:Rick Alan Ross discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

My bio at Wikipedia has a long history of being used by advocates for groups called "cults" (e.g. Scientology, Divine Light Mission) intent upon editing at Wikipedia for the purpose of personal and professional attacks. I have read and applied the Wikipedia guidelines to my input at the bio Talk page. My interest is that the bio be accurate, NPOV, totally factual and that it does not contain misleading or biased statements of opinion. I provide reliable sources for every one of my edit suggestions and at times have questioned certain cited sources that have ultimately proven to be unreliable.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other parties of this filing at their talk pages. (Notification on the article talk page, which was provided, is not sufficient.) This case cannot be opened until the other editors are notified at their talk pages. Also, the subject of this article, User:Rick Alan Ross, was not included in the list of parties. I have included him. The filing party must notify the subject of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - I will respond at this time to a few comments by one of the parties. First, it isn't necessary to provide diffs of the edits that an editor tried to insert. This isn't a quasi-judicial forum like WP:ANI, and the discussion will be of proposed content, not of contributors. Second, the comment is made that the talk page is archived very fast, and the volunteer should read through the archives. Can the archiving of the talk page be slowed down by tweaking the parameters? However, the volunteer doesn't need to read through the archives, because the parties are normally expected to summarize what the content issues are. Third, the parties are reminded to comment on content, not on contributors. Fourth, participation in DRN is voluntary. If some of the parties don't want to participate, they don't have to do so. However, since the next step if DRN is declined or fails appears to be Arbitration Enforcement, participation is advised. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• This article should be in keeping with Wikipedia's definition of authorities and selection of material. Currently, the article cites Ross's professional accomplishments as though he were tuning pianos or treating plague victims:

  By 2004, Ross had handled more than 350 deprogramming cases in various countries [1] and testified as an expert witness in several court cases.[1][39][40] He has also contributed to a number of books, including a foreword to Tim Madigan's See no Evil[41] and a chapter to Roman Espejo's Cults: Opposing Viewpoints.[42] In 2014 Ross self-published the book Cults Inside Out.[31] The book was also published in China in 2015 by a Hong Kong publisher.[43]

  How nice. However, when an impartial jury of his peers examined Ross's activities, they found that as a deprogrammer, Ross: "intentionally or recklessly acted in a way so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Take that statement and multiply it the recognized fact that Ross has engaged in "more than 350 deprogramming cases". Furthermore, Ross's activities as a deprogrammer against his victims are not justified by science -- there is no scientific consensus that Ross is doing any good.

  This is the text of a an edit that was reverted from the page last night before I could finish editing it:

  ==Scientific status of deprogramming==

  The practice of deprogramming depends on the doctrine that new religious movements (cults) use brainwashing (also called coercive persuasion, mind control, or thought control) on the cult members to persuade them to do and believe things they would not otherwise do. This brainwashing doctrine is the "linchpin" of the anti-cult movement.

  Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to explain how totalitarian regimes appeared to systematically indoctrinate prisoners of war through propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later expanded and modified by psychologists including Margaret Singer and Philip Zimbardo to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions to some new religious movements (NRMs). The suggestion that NRMs use mind control techniques has resulted in scientific and legal debate; with Eileen Barker, James Richardson, and other scholars, as well as legal experts, rejecting at least the popular understanding of the concept. In 1987, the American Psychological Association (APA) formally and forcefully rejected the APA's task force report on the subject (Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control), written primarily by Singer. Singer herself characterized the APA's rejection as "a rejection of the scientific validity of the theory of coercive persuasion."

  Newer theories have been proposed by scholars including: Robert Cialdini, Robert Jay Lifton, Daniel Romanovsky, Kathleen Taylor, and Benjamin Zablocki. The concept of mind control is sometimes involved in legal cases, especially regarding child custody; and is also a major theme in both science fiction and in criticism of modern corporate culture. However, the theory that cults and new religious movements use mind control (brainwashing, etc.) on their members is still (as of 2012) not as a fact of scientific consensus.

  ... there has been until now a lack of any convincing scientific evidence which can be applied in a generalised form to show that involvement in a New Religious Movement has any destructive consequences for the psyche of the individual concerned. ... The fact that, in all the ensuing years, no one has succeeded in verifying beyond reasonable doubt any of these claims, has however, never been regarded as a reason to exonerate the groups in any way. ... Thus, up to the time of writing, there has not been one single successful, legal conviction of the Scientology Church, even though this group has come to be regarded as the most dangerous of the new religious organisations. ... The fact that even long-term investigations have as yet failed to produce the desired results continues to be ignored.

References