I am closing this case as failed, because editor User:Manoflogan has not responded to my latest post within 48 hours, but is continuing to edit the article, which does not appear to be an effort to resolve the content dispute by moderated discussion. Further discussion of issues of source reliability can be taken to the reliable source noticeboard. If there is an interest in changing the scope of the article to include programs rebroadcast by Zindagi (the lede currently states that it includes only programs originally broadcast by Zindagi), a Request for Comments can be used to change the scope of the article. Edit-warring can be reported to the edit-warring noticeboard. Other conduct issues, such as editing against consensus, can be reported to AP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2015 (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.
I tried to use the talk page Talk:List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV. I sought the advice of other experienced wikipedia editors on how to resolve the matter. TRPOD has been extremely rigid and will not hesitate to revert the edits, or lock the pages if some disagrees with his opinions. TRPOD has also been proven wrong on many occasions. A RFC about Future programs was triggered as a result of a heated discussion on Talk:List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV and because TRPOD kept getting into edit wars all over wikipedia. This is just one more example of his refusal to discuss any issues. You can view the RFC discussion here. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Heated_Disagreements_about_Future_Programming for example.
How do you think we can help?
I want you to judge if I have provided reliable, correct sources whose content can be verified upon cross-examination. I believe that they are, as they can be corroborated with other sources, be it primary, secondary or other. WP:PRIMARY advises that primary sources can be used as long as we don't interpret them. I use the primary sources to corroborate that a series was broadcast, the premier date, and duration of broadcast. I was in the process of adding additional references when TRPOD reverted my changes., citing crappy sources. They are facts, not at all susceptible to interpretation. All my sources are listed on the talk page Talk:List of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV#Sources_and_attribution. I believe that all sources provided by me are reliably published and verifiable upon challenge and cross-examination. Senior wiki admins/editors User:Cyphoidbomb and User:Wikimandia have not objected to provided references after I explained my rationale. TRPOD keeps getting into edit wars as he has done so in the past, to the extent of being topic banned.
(Update):As you are aware, User:Wikimandia recommended that I go to WP:ANI. That would be an extreme step. I don't wish to do that yet. I seek a neutral and an unbiased opinion because I think that an unbiased opinion is exactly what is required, before resorting to an extreme step of going to WP:ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoflogan (talk • contribs) 16:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
(Update): The IP address User:50.196.167.154 is me, ManOfLogan. I had issues submitting the dispute resolution with IE, where I was logged in. It triggered a pop up preventing me from submitting it. I used Firefox instead to request dispute resolution. I forgot to login on Firefox when submitting the dispute request. I apologize for my mistake. I would like to respond to TRPOD about his examples. I have never used IndianTelevision.com as a reference. He can verify that on the talk page himself. TRPOD challenged the authenticity of the information that I have provided. I provided proof with corroboration. He can verify that on the talk page. NewsTechCafe lists upcoming shows on their website. Their posts have proven to be correct upon challenge. Why should a reference not be accepted when it is proven to be correct upon challenge? I have provided proofs in support of the source article that do not violate any wikipedia rules. You don't criticize editors for using only TVGuide as a reference for he broadcast dates of Seinfeld episodes. Why should you not consider NewstechCafe as a proof when the information has proven to be correct upon challenge?Manoflogan (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by TheRedPenOfDoom
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:List of programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV#Sources_and_attribution discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's note: I'm neither taking nor opening this for discussion, but only noting that notice and discussion are adequate. Waiting for TRPoD to indicate whether nor not he will participate and to give a summary if he chooses to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
One more thing, I note that in this edit Manoflogan threatens to take TRPoD to dispute resolution. I don't suppose that I have a problem per se with that, but it causes me to be concerned that Manoflogan may have a false expectation about what dispute resolution does and can do. First, it's not much of a threat since participation in moderated content dispute resolution here at DRN or at MEDCOM is always voluntary and no one is ever required to participate in dispute resolution. If TRPoD chooses not to participate, this case will be closed. Second, the primary purpose of moderated content dispute resolution is to facilitate discussion between the parties and dispute resolution does not make binding judgments or decisions involving article content. Volunteers here may or may not choose to offer an opinion about some content matter, but such opinions are not binding: they're just an opinion from a neutral, unbiased party. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer moderator
I am accepting this case for voluntary moderated discussion. I will remind all of the parties to be civil and concise and to comment on content, not on contributors. While this appears to be a dispute about the validity of sources, I would like all of the parties to explain below what they think that the issues are. I would also like to know whether User:50.196.167.154, who filed this case, is User:Manoflogan, editing logged out, so that I know whether we have two parties or three. If three, please make separate statements. If there are two parties to this case, please do not edit logged out as an IP address. Please make your statements in the section below. Please do not engage in threaded discussion. Please make your statements to the moderator, not to the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I will check on the status of this case at least once every 24 hours. I expect every participant to check on its status at least every 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
First statements by editors
My edits have been attempts to bring the article into compliance with policies such as WP:NPOV / WP:V / WP:NOTADVERT / WP:RS.
has apparently taken affront at that effort in part it appears because they do not adequately understand WP:RS and that merely pointing to some website doesn't satisfy the WP:BURDEN that before content is restored to an article, a reliable citation must be provided with the content.
I will take responsibility for not explaining in detail why each of the sources is not acceptable, however previous interactions with <redacted> have given me the impression that xe is not very interested in listening to anything that I have to say. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom15:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Contrary to his opinion, I have taken the effort to make sure that I understand the Wikipedia rules. I have tried to explain to him my position on the talk page. His contention is that the source I have provided violates WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERT. That could not be more false. I have provided the explanations and rationale as to why the sources comply with all of the above rules and requirements on the talk page. The purpose of the sources is to confirm that 1. the show is/was being broadcast on Zindagi_(TV_channel) and 2. the premier date of the broadcast and the duration.
That is the only purpose for the provided sources. I have provided sources that comply with WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOCIALNETWORK, in addition to complying with the requirements of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTADVERT and WP:NPOV. I believe that I have provided proof that fulfills all the requirements of WP:BURDEN. This can be confirmed from the talk page. I would like to point out that reliable is not the same as correct or error-free. I have provided sources that are reputable, and most importantly correct in accordance to rules and requirements of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERT.
He has stated that I have taken affront because he thinks that I don't understand WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVERT, WP:RS and WP:V. On the contrary, I understand the requirements for conforming to all of the cited requirements very well. I have made the effort to explain the reasons and provided the sources that not only conform to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERT, but also WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOCIALNETWORK. You can see the evidence on the talk page. I take affront because he deletes entries on the wiki page that have comply with the requirements that he has cited, but also additional requirements as well. I take affront because he has been getting into edit wars on this wiki page and other pages by rigidly sticking to the position that have proven to be wrong in the past. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Heated_Disagreements_about_Future_Programming is an evidence of that. He has been the only editor that thinks that the sources I have provided are, to use his words, crappy. I have also never provided http://www.indiantelevision.com as a reliable source for any of the entries that I disagree with him on. This can be confirmed on the talk page. He has not even gotten his facts correct in this instance. I take affront at that. Manoflogan (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
Comment on content, not on contributors. The repeated references to "take affront" are not useful.
Please provide a list of the sources about which there is controversy, and why the sources are acceptable, and why the sources are not acceptable. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
As I have mentioned before List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV is a list of programs that are being broadcast, or have been previously broadcast or to be broadcast by Zindagi_(TV_Channel). There is no other content. The issue was taken by the inclusion of the following entries to the wiki page. I will show that the information listed on the wiki page is correct, cited with reliable sources that fulfill the requirements of WP:BURDEN. The following URLs give you the list of shows that being broadcast right now.
http://www.zindagitv.in/shows for the list of shows that are being broadcast right now with days and times of broadcast.
I have provided proof from third party, primary sources and social media that Noor Bano started broadcast on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) on August 19, 2015 and is currently being broadcast.
I have provided proof from third party, primary sources and social media posts Saare Mausam Tumse Hee started broadcast on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) on April 5, 2015 and is currently being broadcast on Zindagi
I have provided proof from third party, primary sources and social media sources that Sabki Ladli Laraib premiered on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) on May 4, 2015.
I have provided proof from third party, primary sources and social media sources that Ye Sasural Bemisaal premiered on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) on April 5, 2015.
I have provided proof that Tanhai premiered on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) on August 17, 2015
I have used a combination of third party, primary and secondary sources wherever applicable. I have been diligent in making sure that I have fulfilled the requirements of WP:RS, WP:V, [WP:NOTADVERT]] and WP:NPOV. I have also fulfilled the requirements of WP:PRIMARY. The WP:PRIMARY states that (emphasis mine) unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. We are NOT interpreting any information from any primary source in our references. We are using the primary source to prove that the series was premiered on a particular date on Zindagi. Therefore any usage of primary source is valid in this case.
WP:SOCIALNETWORK states that (emphasis mine) Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
We use the social network posts to corroborate that a show will premier or has premiered on a particular date. The references do not make any other claim. Zindagi is not at all associated with this page, so this does not violate the unduly self-serving rule.
it does not involve claims about third parties;
This page is about a list of programs broadcast by Zindagi_(TV_Channel). We are not making claims about any other network or website.
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
Same principle applies. We are using the social media posts to verify that the show premiered on a particular date on Zindagi_(TV_Channel). This is directly connected to source. We are not violating this principle.
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
The social media posts can be corroborated with third party, primary sources and broadcast schedule. You can verify that a particular show premiered on a specific date on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) using a combination of other sources.
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
The article is not based primarily on these sources. Some entries require corroboration from social media posts. Majority of the entries are sourced from reputable third party sources or primary sources. I want to reiterate the following points:
All of my sources are attributable. Upon challenge, I can prove it that the series were broadcast on Zee Zindagi using a combination of third party, primary and secondary sources. Experienced wiki editor Wikimandia had this to say to other party in this dispute.
Additionally primary sources can be used for information like television. Not to establish notability for a subject, but for various details. There is nothing wrong with that source for the TV show. This is not a BLP. You are being disruptive by removing it.
http://www.droutinelife.com/about-us/ again, just some guys web page, no evidence of any journalistic background or standards, and the focus on presentation of copyright lyrics is again WP:ELNEVER status.
http://www.uniarticles.com/p/about-us.html is again, just some guy's website with no evidence of journalist experience - his background is a B Tech nor editorial board.
It appears that there is another editor currently involved in this dispute, whom I have added. Editors: Please do not edit the article until this controversy is resolved. Discussion can be done here. Also, please keep the discussion centered here, at this noticeboard, rather than at the talk page, as long as this discussion is continuing here, so as to keep it centralized. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It is true that reliable sourcing does not guarantee inclusion, but, since this article is a list, I would think that all of the reliably sourced entries should be included. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I see that one editor did reply to the question that I had originally asked, which was for a list of sources. The other editor provided a list of programs, which is better than nothing, but the list was too long, difficult to read. (I did read it anyway.) Now that reliable and unreliable sources have been discussed, I would like each editor to identity any programs that either should be removed, e.g., because there are only reruns or were not properly sourced, or that should be added, e.g., because they were original programming and are properly sourced. ~~
It appears that we have an article scope question as well as a sourcing question. The Times of India is a reliable source as to whether a program was broadcast or rebroadcast on Zindagi. However, the issue about at least one program appears to be that the Times of India reports that it was rebroadcast on Zindagi, but the question is whether this should be list of programs that were originally broadcast on Zindagi, or also a list of programs that were rebroadcast? Is that one of the issues? If so, we have two questions, reliability of sources (the Times or the social media), and the scope of the list article in the first place. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Third round of statements byTRPoD
Third round statement part 1: To Robert McClenon re my comment on Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion . That was reflecting my position that even though a reliable source such as Times of India says that a program is being rebroadcast on a station, that does not mean that the rebroadcast is relevant to the subject of the article and should be included. (content re what meets/does not meet to be provided in a few hours) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom18:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Third round of statements by editors
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.
This case is being closed because WP:STUB explains the guidelines for stub articles.TheJack15 (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Serena Williams is not a stub article, so the closing premise is false. However, this does appear to have been settled here so I'm still closing this, but as moot. If further dispute resolution is needed, it may be refiled. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC) (DRN Coordinator)
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.
There has been an ongoing debate as to whether the mention of the Karsten Braasch vs. Serena Williams exhibition match warrants its own section or sub-section. It is my opinion that it is does not it help the article meet the criteria of length which requires that "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." Also, it is rather biasly written and needs to be edited for objectiveness and length. Although it was a Battle of the Sexes match it was still an exhibition that she played when she was 16 and no other top tennis player has a section of exhibitions on their page, not even Billie Jean King who arguably played the most monumental BOTS match of all time. I think would be a poor precedent to allow single exhibition matches to have their own section.
Fyunk's argument was that it was a special match and needs to be mentioned. He also stated that because it's not a normal tennis match that it shouldn't just be listed under her professional career section.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Its my personal opinion that this bit of info doesn't need to be in the article period but I have conceded to leaving it in but not with it's own section.
How do you think we can help?
I believe if a third party can help us agree on how much detail is needed within the article and how sections and sub-sections should be used then a compromise would soon follow. Thank you.
Summary of dispute by Fyunck
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
LOL, boy that was fast from a new editor. I have this listed at the Tennis project talk page so we'll see what they say. Basically we have a content dispute over the standing section on Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters. This new editor has decided that it cannot stay in a separate subsection for some reason. There had been talk a couple months ago (by an anon IP and another new editor), but it really went nowhere. I reverted it nonchalantly and he reverted back (which is not really kosher). I thought maybe if we changed things and put it in a subsection in the 1998 section of the article it would appease him. Apparently not because he insists on this Battle of the Sexes being eliminated or blended in with legitimate WTA events. That is a huge no for me and I believe the tennis community as well. He has no consensus to eliminate or move this section. Maybe being new he/she is not aware of wiki nuances so it's not like I'm upset about the situation. Everyone has to start somewhere. I don't think either of us went over 2 reverts so I'm surprised it's actually here. But here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Serena Williams discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - The inclusion of the proposed section has not been discussed on the talk page yet. Extensive talk page is a prerequisite to moderated discussion. I am neither accepting nor declining this thread, but am recommending that it be declined. After this question has been discussed inconclusively at length, it may be refilled without prejudice.Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually to be fair to user Thad caldwell, it had been discussed a couple months ago briefly and also in the last 24 hours. So while I believe he is in the wrong, it did have a little discussion on the talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer note - The discussion on the talk page had indeed been started two months ago, which is not recent, and then picked up in the middle of what otherwise appeared to be a stale section. I am neither accepting nor declining this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer note - I agree with the above, but I'm declining this, if the article is a stub, it should be moved into another sections. Period. TheJack15 (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article has been deleted per criteria CSD A7. Regards—☮JAaron95Talk 10:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
To clarify a little further, this appears to be a discussion about the deletion of an article. The article was deleted, as noted, on the grounds that there was no information about the notability of the subject. This does not mean that she is or is not notable, but that the article provided no case for her notability. This noticeboard does not discussion deletion of articles. Requests for restore deleted articles to user or draft space, so that they can be improved, can be made at Requests for Undeletion. Questions about whether a speedy deletion was appropriate should be asked first of the deleting administrator, and may if necessary be taken to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2015 (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.
There was a malicious comment saying that the page needs to be destroyed and how inaccurate it is. Chaunty is a credited, very featured actor. An actor is an actor. There is no need to knit pick this page the way this one person was. I deleted it because it defames Chaunty's character as an artist and actor. She is SAG-AFTRA (Screen Actor's Guild) and the person maliciously attacking the page is malicious. They are clearly jealous and are not helping the maintaining of Wikipedia's accuracy on Chaunty Spillane. This page was obviously approved to be made for a reason. It is relevant. Please stop threatening to delete it and stop taking that malicious person's accusations and complaints seriously. They are just an internet troll.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Erased their comment
How do you think we can help?
Monitor the page better and keep it how it is. It does not sound like a commercial. It looks exactly like Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise's pages. Formatted correctly and unbiased. It doesn't say Chaunty is a great actor. It just says what she does and has done.
Summary of dispute by SineBot9
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Chaunty Spillane 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.
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance and one talk page posting by each disputant is not extensive. If other editor will not discuss (which does not appear to be the case), consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:28, 14 September 2015 (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.
I am an expert on the topic on this page. I have been monitoring it for vandalism and promotional spamming. I have been successful until now. The other editor ( Mean as Custard) has resorted to a reversion war. he has not been open to discussion at all. He just removes a vast majority of the edits without reason. Since I am an expert on this topic I know many of the references and these people are also industry experts and have referenced a number of important information topics on this page.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
tried to reach out with no response.
How do you think we can help?
While I am open to discussion about how to make this page better, other editor seems more interested in vandalizing the page.
Summary of dispute by Mean as Custard
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
self-directed IRA discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Response:
I have not been notified of this complaint but came across it by chance. . .
Material removed consisted of refspam. This refers to promotional links masquerading as references, designed to attract traffic to commercial websites. The references I removed were to commercial investment companies chiefly consisting of material written by senior partners of those companies, notably Adam Bergman, senior tax partner at the IRA Financial Group, and Bill Humphrey, Co-founder and CEO of New Direction IRA.
IRA Financial Group: "The Mission of IRA Financial Group is: to create exceptional value for our customers by harmoniously blending professionalism; quality and efficiency; to deliver highly customized client services at an affordable price; to adhere to the highest ethical standards; to exceed our clients’ expectations."
New Direction IRA: "New Direction IRA is a trusted provider of investor education as well as custodial and administrative services* for retirement accounts and HSAs. We enable individual investors to take control of their tax advantaged accounts using alternative asset opportunities that are ideally suited to each investor’s goals and investment style. Investors, advisors and asset providers choose New Direction IRA because of our depth of experience in asset acquisition, specialized education offerings and proven track record of reliable transaction funding and thorough asset documentation."
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.
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.
Volunteer note - I see considerable recent discussion on the article talk page, about casualty numbers and about the inclusion of an image. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer note - However, the filing party has not notified the appropriate editors (one of whom is listed, and one of whom is not listed). The responsibility is on the filing party to notify the other editors of this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Jaaron95, I found that too (after I left the note here and on ANI), but I think the problem is that the editor just doesn't understand the problem. Bgwhite reverted the addition of the photo because it was part of the edit that claimed Russia didn't send any troops; it's not about the photo (that's only a few sentences of talk page discussion). I have just sharpened up the reference for the Russian support and added another. If y'all want to go on with this that's fine, but we have a pretty clear-cut case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
hi all,
The problem is simple to solve, we have established the arms sales and strategic advice on the part of Russia. ok
I asked to specify only (not troop) in the first sentence of the text and if the writing and difficult to understand you to show me how to add the no wrong.
DRN Coordinator's note: I've notified Bgwhite. There has not been sufficient discussion about the image issue for it to be brought here, so if a DRN volunteer takes this case I'm going to ask them not to address that issue. Frankly, it needs someone fluent in both Italian and in Wikipedia policy and procedure to properly address the issue about the non-involvement of Russian troops with the filing party to see if there's just a misunderstanding here, due to language difficulties, or a real dispute. Are there any volunteers who are fluent in Italian? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Drmies for stepping in. Language is not the issue. They have the same problems on the Italian Wikipedia. They have been blocked for adding information not in sources and a two month block just expired for personal attacks and sock puppeting. They have been warned about POV and adding material in a non-encyclopedic tone. It also appears Italian is not their native language.
I'm only a historian of misery. If we can't get the editor to agree that "not troops" isn't necessary to add, esp. since the military assistance is to some extent specified (yes rifles, yes sabres, no troops mentioned), then you can get all the linguists in the world together but we'll get nowhere, and the question becomes why this editor is so interested in this point being made explicitly--but that's not a question for Wikipedians. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
hi all,
my tongue is Italian and I speak perfectly.
the shape of the text alright so even if it is not well specified the not-participation of a Russian army but accept it , ok.
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.
Abandoned by filing party. No notice given to all other parties. May be refiled, but notice must be given to all other parties at the time of filing. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:06, 15 September 2015 (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.
I tried to restore a longstanding part of the article that had been removed without discussion, at least until discussion had resolved itself. JustBerry undid my restoration of this part of the article, on the grounds that it was my restoration of a line that had been in the article for 8 years, rather than the removal that had just taken place without discussion, was less than neutral! I then modified the old line that had been removed such that it took into account the recent discussion, but JustBerry undid this as well, accusing me of not addressing the "issue," without specifically saying what the issue is.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
No other steps
How do you think we can help?
Provide a neutral viewpoint
Summary of dispute by ComradeScientist
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:World Socialist_Web_Site discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@RMS52: Since the page editing history suggests a lengthy dispute, it would probably be best to make a conclusive decision of some sort through DRN volunteers in an attempt to achieve a higher level of resolution in this case. --JustBerry (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@RMS52: Also, the case is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The category of this issue would lie in the realm of undue weight, WP:NPOV, and the significance of the relationship between the source and the claim being made in the realm of potential systemic bias. As a note to other DRN volunteers, this is the basis of the CON argument against the edit, not my opinion, jurisdiction, or ultimate classification of the issue.
Comment: The talk page discussion of this DRN report lies here. It should be noted that my role in the process was to iron out the disagreement between the two editors prior to making the addition of the content and remove any potential systemic bias via an anti-vandal effort. Since the issue had a few back and forths, it would be advisable for DRN volunteers to take a brief look through the page editing history. Although I am a volunteer at DRN and am not directly conflicted with the issue at hand, I will opt out of any further discussion to avoid any perceived unfairness for the remainder of the case. If need be, any volunteer should feel free to ping my name to call my attention to a question posed by a volunteer; however, I will not act as the ultimate arbitrator of fairness for this DRN case and give reigns of judgement to the rest of the Wikipedia community. --JustBerry (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer's note: I'm neither taking this nor opening it for discussion at this time, but it does appear to me that while there's been adequate talk page discussion to bring this to DRN, that notice hasn't been given to the responding party and that there may be others involved in the talk page discussion who haven't been listed here. It is the listing party's obligation to give notice to all other parties on their user talk pages, either using the notice template at the top of this page or using a custom message linking to this case, and to make sure all parties actively involved in the dispute are listed here and provided opening comment sections above. If notice is not given in 2 or 3 days, this listing will be closed as abandoned. Once notice has been given and all listed parties have made opening statements it would appear that it will then be ready for acceptance and we'll see if there's a volunteer interested in taking and opening this case. Whether or not there's been IDONTLIKEIT involved can be something that volunteer works through, if it is present. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It appears to me that vigorous discussion is still continuing on the talk page and has not yet stalled out or reached an impasse. The filing editor has only one edit on that page (unless s/he is one of the editors involved in the discussion who has simply forgotten to log in, but the fact that s/he lists her/himself below as {{User|Myself}} suggests that not to be the case), so cannot be said to have participated in an extensive discussion on the article talk page. That would not, ordinarily, alone be a reason to close this, but combined with the fact of the continuing discussion, this case is not yet ripe for dispute resolution unless one of the other editors in the discussion chooses to refile this case. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:31, 16 September 2015 (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.
Sam Houser's Nationality. Although Sam was born, raised, educated and lived in Britain for 36yrs. He then moved to the US and became an American citizen. He also still resides in Britain. The article currently says that he is an American citizen, as there is 1 source that says he moved to America. However, when a British citizen becomes an American citizen, they also get to keep their British citizenship as although naturalizing citizens are required to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances, the oath has never been enforced to require the actual termination of original citizenship. British actress Emily Blunt recently became an American citizen and said this "“I became an American citizen recently - “The thing that’s weird is I do get to keep both my British citizenship and this, but you have to renounce her (The Queen)." So that would make them British Americans?
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Adding extra information that may shed some light on the subject.
How do you think we can help?
By taking a look and reaching an unbiased, factual solution.
Summary of dispute by Kandyce2013
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by General Ization
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Primefac
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Myself
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Sam Houser#Sam.27s_Nationality. 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.
Moot. Both the filing party and the primary opponent have withdrawn, stated that there is no more to do here, or wish to move to a "higher authority." — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:35, 16 September 2015 (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.
I do not know, but this is recommended as the next step; and clearly, we must do something! It should be better that the edit war that happens now, right?
Summary of dispute by Prephysics
I do not "insists on advocating a fringe theory". I am insisting on unbiased accuracy based on one incontestable and universal source, i.e., Nature, which is the central focus of "superdeterminism" and the loophole of John S Bell's theorem. The paradigm consisting of viewpoints are inherently ambiguous and subjective and therefore are inappropriate means to discuss a paradigm that is unambiguous, i.e., absolute determinism. In keeping with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, the Final Selection Thought Experiment allows for everyone, regardless of academic background, to confirm for themselves if the universe is indeed absolutely deterministic by providing a transparent resolution to this impasse. Since the only reliable source of this topic is Nature itself, viewpoints cannot be used to supersede its precedence.
Undue weight of biased viewpoints on this topic has historically been defensively maintained by its editors. No one individual is entitled to their own facts, myself included. However, when presented with the opportunity to support their opinions by conducting the thought experiment in real life and settle this issue once and for all they openly failed to do so. Instead, they choose to censor the thought experiment in its entirety which exposed the bias being practiced. Such disregard for objectivity and the lack of integrity demonstrated only serves to compromise Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral and free encyclopedia.
Since I am limited to 2000 characters, I am prohibited to present the Final Selection Thought Experiment being contested and request such limitation be lifted in order to do so. Prephysics (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer's note: I am neither taking this nor opening for discussion at this time, but I am seriously considering taking this case. There is no need to add more material in your opening statement. All of the participants have read the talk page, and the DRN volunteer who takes this case will study the article history and talk page discussion before taking the case. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by TimothyRias
Prephysics (talk·contribs) insists on adding material to the article that is not properly supported by appropriate secondary sources. Repeated attempts at explaining Wikipedia policy of verifiability to him are simply met by him claiming that his arguments are above policy because they come directly from Nature. (Whatever that means.) TR19:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Superdeterminism discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's note: I am neither taking this nor opening for discussion, but merely noting that the notice to parties and discussion on the talk page seems to be adequate. Waiting for summary statements from all parties. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer moderator
I am accepting this dispute for moderated discussion. Please explain briefly what content issues are involved. It does appear that one editor has been repeatedly adding essentially the same material and other editors have been removing it, so can those who wish to keep the content explain why it is appropriate and those who wish to remove it explain why it is not appropriate. It isn't helpful in this context simply to say that the material is fringe, because it appears that superdeterminism is itself considered fringe by most scientists, and that articles on fringe subjects are appropriate and should describe the fringe content. Are there other policy reasons why the material is considered inappropriate?
I see that one editor recently proposed deletion of the article, and the article was not deleted. I will note that this noticeboard is not a place for discussing or rediscussing deletion. It is for discussion of what the content of an article should be, not whether the article should exist (have content). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Please be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. (There are other ways to discuss user conduct, and often resolving content disputes can mitigate conduct issues.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I intend to check on this discussion at least once every 24 hours, and I expect every editor to check on its content and make appropriate replies at least every 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Statements by editors
What a challenge is issued by the moderator! I take it up. No, 't Hooft and Morales are not two creators of two fringe theories. 't Hooft is well above the upper threshold of the fringe diapason; Morales is well below the lower threshold.
Gerard 't Hooft is a Nobel laureate in theoretical physics. His project is "an alternative theoretical formulation" (in the language of our policy), with a potential for shifting the paradigm. The author is highly professional, and surely understands how problematic is his project for now. A number of quite professional sources about this project are pointed out by Timothy Rias on the AfD discussion.
Now about Morales. He insists repeatedly that we should perform his "thought experiment", thus convincing ourselves that free will does not exist. I am sorry if I misrepresent his position here; I feel that I fail to understand him, this is just the problem. But I try. The thought experiment: imagine that you lose all possibilities to implement your will, and observe that you are effectively dead then. OK, even if we agree, what now? As for me, it looks like "2+2=4, therefore free will does not exist". For me, the words of Morales are not a wrong statement, nor a true statement, but something meaningless. Or am I too stupid? Maybe. Is there anyone (not Morales himself) able to explain me, in own words, the idea of Morales? Please do!
Being a mathematician, I nevertheless wrote a number of referee reports for physical journals. Sometimes I wrote "excellent", sometimes "reject emphatically". But I cannot imagine the text of Morales among the manuscripts sent to me for refereeing. Such texts are routinely rejected by editors as "not refereeable". What an irony: a published refereed article appears to be not refereeable! O tempora o mores!
The contested material is not supported by an secondary sources. Hence per WP:V it should not be included. The primary sources used to support the material are of an extremely questionable nature, being either self-published or in very shady journals (which you can essentially pay to publish your work without question). There is pretty much nothing further to it.TR07:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Moderator questions - The primary issue appears to be the insertion of a proposed experiment. The experiment is intended either to prove the existence of free will and thus invalidate superdeterminism or to disprove the existence of free will, so that superdeterminism may be a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics. Is the experiment intended to prove free will, or to prove its non-existence? If it can't do either, then isn't it not even wrong? (Is that the same as "not refereeable"?) However, the proposed experiment appears to be self-published. Is the experiment self-published? In that case, is it verifiable at all? Please provide reliable sources that have discussed the experiment. Otherwise, its inclusion does not appear to be consistent with Wikipedia policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Moderator questions - I see discussion above about Gerard 't Hooft, but I don't see any mention either in the article in question or in his BLP about his theoretical work on superdeterminism. If he has addressed it in the form of an alternative theoretical formulation (and he is a distinguished theorist), then his paper should be referenced if he is to be mentioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The first question is probably addressed to "Prephysics". On the second question:
"Comment. Well, looking in "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" by 't Hooft I see the word "superdeterminism" once in the abstract and then 1+3 times in Sect. 14.3 "Superdeterminism and Conspiracy" starting with:
"Superdeterminism may be defined to imply that not only all physical phenomena are declared to be direct consequences of physical laws that do not leave anything anywhere to chance (which we refer to as ‘determinism’), but it also emphasises that the observers themselves behave in accordance with the same laws. They also cannot perform any whimsical act without any cause in the near past as well as in the distant past. By itself, this statement is so obvious that little discussion would be required to justify it, but what makes it more special is that it makes a difference."
"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."
If Wikipedia's policy of content being verifiable is indeed genuine, then it is obligated to publish the Final Selection Thought Experiment in order to remain neutral and allow all to discover for themselves and without bias if the universe is absolutely deterministic as follows:
Researcher Manuel S Morales designed an experiment for everyone to test for themselves if the acts of selection are indeed fundamental laws of a super-deterministic physical universe or merely cognitive acts. An individual can contest in real life, thereby removing any doubt, if determinism is absolute via the Final Selection Thought Experiment as follows:
Ho - If the two acts of selection are not necessary for your existence (cause) then you can safely conduct the Final Selection Thought Experiment in real life and continue your existence (effect).
Ha - If the two acts of selection are necessary for your existence (cause) then you cannot conduct the Final Selection Thought Experiment in real life in order to continue your existence (effect).
Final Selection Thought Experiment:
Let's say that one morning upon awakening you find yourself absent of the ability to choose, e.g., paralyzed from the neck down. This means you cannot choose to move your body whatsoever. You cannot choose to take in any fluids. You cannot choose to take in any nourishment. You cannot choose to relieve yourself, et cetera. Nor can you have others indirectly choose for you.
Please feel free to think it through or conduct the experiment in real life to contest absolute determinism directly with the source.
In order for superdeterminism to be indicative of physical reality, only unambiguous empirical evidence showing the complete absence of free will would be able to contest Bell's theorem. The scientific method[1] of predicting effects (guess) derived from a hypothesis (another guess) is inherently restricted to obtaining ambiguous results by placing effects prior to cause and so cannot be used to obtain unambiguous empirical evidence. In order to obtain empirical evidence of absolute value it is necessary to establish cause prior to effect. Since it is impossible to conduct any experiment without first making a selection, it is necessary to factor all manner of choice in order to establish, without ambiguity, which type of selection event caused the effects that follow. By establishing cause prior to effect in the process of investigating phenomena, ambiguity is nullified. Concerns that superdeterminism would invalidate investigations of Nature by experimentation are unfounded as exhibited by the Final Selection Thought Experiment.
Researcher Manuel S Morales designed an experiment for everyone to test for themselves if the acts of selection are indeed fundamental laws of a super-deterministic physical universe or merely cognitive acts. An individual can contest in real life, thereby removing any doubt, if determinism is absolute via the Final Selection Thought Experiment as follows:
Ho - If the two acts of selection are not necessary for your existence (cause) then you can safely conduct the Final Selection Thought Experiment in real life and continue your existence (effect).
Ha - If the two acts of selection are necessary for your existence (cause) then you cannot conduct the Final Selection Thought Experiment in real life in order to continue your existence (effect).
Final Selection Thought Experiment:
Let's say that one morning upon awakening you find yourself absent of the ability to choose, e.g., paralyzed from the neck down. This means you cannot choose to move your body whatsoever. You cannot choose to take in any fluids. You cannot choose to take in any nourishment. You cannot choose to relieve yourself, et cetera. Nor can you have others indirectly choose for you.
Conclusion - Morales comments, "The outcome of conducting the thought experiment in real life is absolute. The effect of a physical system to no longer have the capacity to make direct selections is certain death. The assumption that selection is some sort of option, a freedom of will, is unsubstantiated by the fact that this predetermined mechanism we call choice is how energy works which is a fundamental necessity, not a metaphysical or cognitive option of our physical existence. In other words, when the origin variables of selection come to exist, energy exists, for they are one and the same. As the thought experiment illustrates, we have the ability to choose because we do not have the option to not choose in order to exist."
As a philosophical theory based on the notion that existence is self-causal, superdeterminism is assumed to deny the possibility of making selections, as it states that any choice is only apparent, therefore the selection not being a selection. However, previous empirical "facts" based on statistical inference or metaphysical assumptions cannot supersede the laws that govern our existence. Either we can violate the laws of a super-deterministic physical universe as exemplified by the thought experiment, or we cannot. There is no in between.
Editor User:Prephysics has proposed the inclusion of a lengthy Final Selection Thought Experiment. Is there a published reliable source for the experiment, in which case a concise summary of the experiment can be included in Wikipedia with a reference to the long experiment? If the experiment is self-published, then it does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If the experiment has been described in reliable secondary sources and can be included in Wikipedia, then the description of the experiment should also state whether it is intended to prove the existence of free will, and thus disprove hard determinism and discredit superdeterminism, or whether it is intended to disprove free will, and thus prove hard determinism, which is consistent with quantum superdeterminism. As it is, while the description of the experiment is long, it isn't clear to the moderator what the experiment is intended to prove or disprove (let alone that it has been published). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
One more moderator request - Please refrain from editing the article in question while dispute resolution is in progress, since moderated dispute resolution is intended to avoid edit-warring. Also, please discuss issues about article content here, on this noticeboard, rather than on the article talk page, while dispute resolution is in progress, so that this can be a centralized location for those discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Statements by editors
No, the experiment has not been described in secondary sources (reliable or otherwise). It has only been described in the original work of Morales, which is mostly self-published or appears in journals of a very questionable nature.TR16:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a double standard being applied to "superdeterminism". Historically, it has been based on conjecture (philosophy) which mistakenly uses ambiguity to describe something that is unambiguous which of course is illogical. In keeping with Wikipedia's core principle of content being verifiable and of neutrality, I have included the Final Selection Thought Experiment in order for all to verify on their own terms if Nature is or is not absolutely deterministic. To my knowledge, not a single editor has conducted the thought experiment in real life in order to justify repeated deletions of the unequivocal validation of superdeterminism. Instead, they have chosen to initiate and continue an editing war by blocking me and threats of continued blockage in order to prevent me from attempting to provide accurate information that they themselves have outright refused to contest.
Regarding the Final Selection Thought Experiment being previously published, it first appeared in the last paragraph of an essay entitled, "Spin States of Selection: Predetermined Variables of ‘bit’" on June 18, 2013. I submitted the article in the 2013 FQXi essay competition which consisted of 182 entries. Each entrant was encouraged to review each other's work. I found it an honor to have my work be openly reviewed by those from the international science community, some of which are in the top of their fields. My article was ranked 3rd by the peer group and 1st by the public:
As far as my credentials on this topic, no one has conducted an experiment to validate or falsify without ambiguity John S Bell's loophole except for myself. Due to my research, I have been invited to referee several physics journals and continuously are being sent manuscripts for review. That being said, what I have found is that opinions, including my own, are irrelevant when it comes to absolute determinism. Only Nature has the final say since it is the source and only means of verification on this topic, hence, the Final Selection Thought Experiment.
As it currently stands, "Superdeterminism" has been reverted via editorial censorship to violate Wikipedia's mandate, "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."
Moderator comment - The above post, as well as part of the collapsed extended post, appears to misread the verifiability policy, as well as other core policies, but I will restate the policy and ask a few questions. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable means that a reader must be able to verify (check) that content has previously been published in reliable sources, preferably reliable secondary sources (since Wikipedia is a tertiary source). It does not mean that an editor can use Wikipedia to ask its readers to verify an assertion by conducting an experiment. Any experiment that is cited must have already been published. Has the result of the experiment been published? If so, what is its result? If the result of the experiment has not been published, but the challenge to conduct the experiment has been published, where has that been done, and what is a concise summary of the experiment, and how it purports to prove or disprove free will. Also, if the editor is Michael Morales, then any effort to use Wikipedia to publish this argument appears to be original research as well as raising conflict of interest issues. Also, the editor's arguments about "Nature" appear to be asserting that the editor's interpretation of Truth trumps Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Encyclopedic content must be verifiable means that a reader must be able to verify (check) that content has previously been published in reliable sources, preferably reliable secondary sources (since Wikipedia is a tertiary source).
It seems, we (the moderator and me; and maybe some others) would like to "perform in real life your thought experiment" (though I wonder, will it then be "thought" or "real"); the only problem is that you do not answer the questions (asked above by the moderator), what the experiment really is, and how to interpret its results. As I wrote above, for now it looks for me somewhat like "2+2=4, therefore free will does not exist". Instead of answering moderator's questions, you just copied hereto a text that we already saw a lot of times and are still unable to understand. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Headbomb
Plain and simple, this is a single purpose account (quite likely Morales himself) trying to push his dubious nonscience crap via Wikilawyering. I disagree that superdeterminism needs its own article, but if we're to have one on it, we should stick to what reputable sources and reputable physicists/philosophers say about it. In the words of Pauli, this is 'not even wrong'. Topic ban / block the troll (or someone who's effectively indistinguishable from one) as WP:NOTHERE/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or whatever, and let's stop wasting time on this. This is time cube level of nonsense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}14:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Moderator Bias
I find it most unfortunate that the moderator has chosen sides in lieu of reality. Wikipedia's mandate, "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." is quite clear. Since the topic is about superdeterminism serving as a loophole to refute John S Bell's theorem, only Nature can serve as the reliable authoritative source and only Nature can be used for verification, hence, the Final Selection Thought Experiment. I move to escalate this dispute to a higher unbiased authority.
I regret that User:Prephysics thinks that I am choosing a "side" in lieu of "reality" by applying Wikipedia policy. As far as I can tell, the editor's opinion on the Final Selection Thought Experiment is just that, an interpretation or opinion, but I may be too embedded in Wikipedia policy. I am withdrawing from this case as moderator and am marking it as needing attention. If another volunteer wishes to take over as moderator, they may do so. Otherwise I recommend that this case be closed by another volunteer. User:Prephysics wishes to "escalate this dispute to a higher unbiased authority". Within Wikipedia, higher levels of dispute resolution are requests for formal mediation or a Request for Comments. I note that formal mediation is voluntary, and that RFC is the only binding higher level of content dispute resolution. As to using "Nature" as a "higher unbiased authority", science consists of the investigation and interpretation of Nature, and Wikipedia is looking for published reliable authoritative sources reporting on that investigation and interpretation, not on original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort. As for me, the case is now clear: "Prephysics" insists repeatedly that everyone has to perform his "experiment" himself, thus convincing himself that the position of "Prephysics" is The Absolute Truth (above all policies); and at the same time he repeatedly refuses to clarify, how to perform this "experiment", and how to interpret the results. (Probably Robert McClenon would put this message into a box, since it is about behavior; but he is no more the moderator... well, I do not mind if the new moderator will do the same. Anyway, I think, there is nothing more to moderate here.) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
(1) The article "Energy catalyzer" (aka E-cat) is a hot topic, since it involves highly suspect claims that have not been 100% backed up. There is also a long history of failures regarding statements of this device which have not come true. Hence, anything that does not bear directly on the validity of the device needs to be carefully weighed.
(2) Recently a large capital investment firm in the US created a company to acquire rights to this device so that they can attempt to make it a viable device. (They also are currently conducting a one year test of the device, attempting to run it 24/7.)
(3) I am attempting to add the investment information to a new section in the article (which I initially termed "Investment and commercialization"). I am willing to leave it only as "Investment" since the commercialization might be too forward looking at this point.
Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
(4) A group of vociferous editors objects to any investment and device rights information in the article. I believe they have lost NPOV, since they mainly seem concerned about posting negative viewpoints about the device. They also deny the validity of the sources I've used, although they are good sources.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We've had repeated discussions in talk,
Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
but they have no inclination to compromise or to post specific edits to improve the quality of the section (except for the section title, which I agreed to). Rather, they have completely rejected anything to do with this content, and say it promotes a fraudulent device, regardless of the fact
the posting specifically concerns only investment and patent rights. Nowhere does the material say the device works, is for sale, or they are seeking investors.
How do you think we can help?
Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
One user characterizes these editors as a "cabal". I think there is blatant lack of NPOV. However, I am only one person.
I'd like some independent review of this matter. If I get a generally favorable response, I'm hoping that the weight of public opinion will allow me to post this data.
I believe that this is significant news re E-cat development. What are my other options? Create a new, associated article re E-cat investments? How could I believe they wouldn't go there and destroy it, too?
Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump
The sources cited are a press release, and an article on a local newspaper website which makes it clear that it is itself citing the press release for the relevant material. Even if this were not a controversial article, it is unlikely that we would consider such sourcing usable, and if we did there is still the question as to whether something only discussed by local media is significant enough to merit inclusion. And when it comes to the E-Cat, there is a long history of announcements of 'investors' of 'factories', and of similar claims all clearly being pushed with the intention of adding credibility to a device which not only has had no scientific recognition, but which flies in the face of current scientific knowledge. As has been repeatedly explained to Robert92107, Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of unverifiable claims about devices supposedly holding the key to the world's energy problems. If and when the E-Cat ever recieves scientific recognition (as demonstrated through significant coverage in credible scientific journals) or if and when it ever becomes available for purchase (at which point, we can assume the scientific community will be scrutinising it intensely) it will of course be Wikipedia's responsiblity to report the matter. Meanwhile, this latest vague statement about unspecified 'intellectual property rights' being purchased for unspecified sums of money doesn't belong in the article. There is nothing substantive to report here, and nothing to indicate that this latest unspecified deal is of any more lasting significance than the long line of previous business arrangements regarding the E-Cat - all of which have proven to be illusory. Including this latest promotional puffery - devoid of meaningful content - while excluding the past similar claims (notably Defkalion, and the mysterious 'factory' in the U.S. which never appeared) would be grossly misleading. THe E-Cat is notable for the claims being made about the device itself, not the repetitive string of vague announcements concerning business deals that never result in anything - and per WP:CRYSTALBALL we certainly shouldn't be including the latest one just because someone expects it to be different this time. If it ever amounts to anything, we can write about it, but meanwhile it is just mundane PR, promoting a device for which there is zero scientific credibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
A comment regarding Professor Josephson's statement:
Almost nothing he has written has any direct bearing on the dispute raised by Robert92107 - the question as to whether the article should include material on the business deal between Rossi and Industrial Heat.
Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Instead, we have his personal commentary on the general plausibility or otherwise of the E-Cat (which is as he is well aware, entirely at odds with the relevant sources by Wikipedia standards - recognised current scientific understanding and consensus), interspersed with allegations of 'dubious exploitation of the rules', 'the usual excuses' and other assertions about the behaviour of contributors.
As is made abundantly clear at the top of this page, the dispute resolution notice board does not discuss behavioural issues, and nor is it a platform for general commentary about article content.
Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Professor Josephson is of course perfectly entitled to raise any supposed behavioural issues at the appropriate noticeboard, but I see no reason why he should be entitled to use this noticeboard as a soapbox, and accordingly wish to make it clear that, given that participation in dispute resolution is voluntary, I will have no further part in this process if it is to be sidetracked by such matters, and accordingly ask that Professor Josephson revises his statement so as to stay on topic, and to discuss the issue in dispute rather than repeating the same complaints that he has made numerous times before - complaints which the community has had ample opportunity to discuss, and has never given any significant credence.
Allowing this discussion regarding a specific issue to become sidetracked in such a manner would not only be a misuse of this noticeboard, but would almost certainly guarantee that no resolution could be reached. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on repetitive off-topic discussions in places where no resolution to such off-topic issues could be reached anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Brian Josephson
First of all, since I was the person who used the word cabal, the group concerned is technically not a cabal as they probably do not communicate directly with each. Nevertheless there is indirect communication on the basis of their seeing each other's edits and comments. In addition there is an element of secrecy involved in the way these individuals do not publicly announce what appear, on the basis of a study of their edits, to be their aims in the way that some other groups do. It is convenient to use the word cabal in the absence of any brief more accurate way to capture what I see happening. But let me get down to business. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
So sorry if my writings do not come up to AndyTheGrump's stringent requirements!! I suggest, though, that people who study what I have written carefully will see that in fact most of it is relevant, either to the point at issue or as a response to comments that others have made in this dispute resolution process (even if not so visibly relevant that AtG can see the connection). Perhaps the complaint should be that the others to whom I have responded have wandered off topic but I think that where appropriate what they say should be answered. AtG also makes the point that what I say here are points I have already made. And why not, if whover is making the decisions isn't familiar with the points and they are equally relevant here? And I think it also needs to be asked in what way AtG's criticisms advance the dispute resolution? What may I ask is the intent behind them, other than an attempt to discourage people from reading my summary? By the way, JzG seems to be doing exactly the things that AtG is complaining about in my writings. Perhaps the two should get together and argue it out among themselves. Sorry to be commenting on other people, but I was not the one who started that process. Brian Josephson (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I should say first of all that I have no particular objection to Cullen's suggestion that press release language be transformed into encyclopedia language. However, such conversions might be attacked by some on the basis of being OR. An alternative, perhaps more in line with w'pedia's verifiability requirement, would be to quote the precise words, making it clear that it is a quote by putting it in quotes.
In response to a comment by Johnuniq, there is an interview with Darden of IH that makes it clear that he believes, on the basis of evidence that he has been involved in, that the e-cat has a lot more than 1 in 100 chance of success (he says for example 'we’ve seen some really good stuff'). That interview could well be included but in any case it renders that criticism invalid.
There is a lot of talk (e.g. by Guy/JzG) of 'consensus'. That's a tricky word that disguises the fact that there is a considerable range of opinion as regards LENR in general, rather than there being almost total agreement that there is error, from those who have looked properly into the experiments. This not at all like the N-ray situation, where a problem was found with the experiments, following which research in the area was dropped by scientists as it was clear the flaw explained everything. With cold fusion/LENR, there is no corresponding flaw that makes the effects go away, and experienced scientists still get effects (though not with total reproducibility, which may be expected sometimes where materials are involved). The e-cat is different in that the situation is not clear-cut in the same way, but that is only to be expected where we have a to some degree paranoid individual who sees people trying to steal his intellectual property everywhere. The idea that this is fraud is just hypothesis, no more than that. Of course, if one believes that LENR is impossible one will be led to postulate fraud regardless of lack of clear evidence, but the case of pyrofusion shows how difficult it is to be sure of anything in physics though of course in the LENR case we have no detailed theory (but the same applied to superconductivity for many years). Brian Josephson (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The fact that 'a large capital investment firm in the US created a company to acquire rights to this device so that they can attempt to make it a viable device' may enhance the credibility of the device, but I cannot see inclusion of this significant information as being primarily with the aim of exploiting this to help marketing (though, as I have indicated above, appropriate rewording might be a good thing stylistically), and in any case there is absolutely no evidence that any editors stand to gain financially in this way. The primary purpose of including this information is to inform. Brian Josephson (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What I find particularly bothersome here is that many of the edits involve what appear to be dubious exploitation of the rules and unconvincing arguments to remove useful information. Take for example the oft-repeated suggestion that some of the material cited is promotional in character. Almost all announcements are to some extent promotional in character, for example the announcement of evidence for the Higgs boson. There are plenty of reasons for making announcements and we should not assume that an announcement is primarily promotional (and there can be a case for including informative promotional announcements in any case.
I'd like to mention In particular the stenuous attempts to prevent material being cited by Mats Lewan, who is conatantly described in belittling terms, such as that he is only promoting is book, and has only a Master's degree whose only value (it is suggested) is that of getting you a discounted cup of coffee. In fact, Lewan is very well qualified both in terms of his qualifications and the amount of time he has spent researching Rossi and the e-cat. In the real world, rather than the bizzare w'pedia incrowd that places dubious emphasis on irrelevancies, he would be regard as very well qualified and an excellent source.
There is also the business of editors busy removing any suggestion that Rossi's patent has anything to do with the e-cat, conveniently using the usual excuses to explain that we cannot take into account Lewan's analyses. The fact that the patent does not refer to LENR or whatever is an irrelevancy for reasons that have been explained elsewhere.
It is time I summed up. Quite simply, it should be clear to anyone who looks dispassionately into the matter that a group of editors are systematically working to remove any material that might enhance the credibility of the e-cat, citing reasons that are distinctly unconvincing. They seem to think this is a good thing whereas I see it as considerably diminishing the value of the article. If there are reasons for doubting the e-cat, these can be included and the reader can then decide how cogent they are.
Summary of dispute by Cullen328
In my judgment, the edits in question were an attempt to add promotional language to the article in order to state that the E-Cat device works as claimed and is on the brink of commercial success. We need vastly better sources for any such claims than a press release sent out by the investment company through PR Newswire.
The phrase "an accelerator for environmental startups" is promotional marketing jargon copied directly from the press release, and the phrase "noted that performance validation tests were conducted in the presence of their staff and validated by an independent expert before the rights were purchased," also copied, strongly and falsely implies that the device has been proven to work. The fact that a local business journal repeated some of the statements from the press release in a little article does not transform the press release into a reliable source. That is what local business journals do most of the time as opposed to independent reporting. This reporter was careful to note that the press release was the source of the information, an indication that little independent reporting was done, other than to summarize and link to a story critical of the device.
Copied from that story is "Terms of the deal were not announced, but a US Securities filing reported that $11.6 million has been invested in the firm." Why should an encyclopedia be commenting on what was not announced? The amount of money mentioned is trivial in the world of technology start-ups and investment banking, and unworthy of mention in an encyclopedia in this context.
Then we have, "Vaughn said the firm is most interested in making the technology more widely available to universities, non-governmental organizations, and industry partnerships to further its development", again copied from the news article and the press release and more promotional marketing language.
The edit warring to add this promotional material is just another episode in the long campaign to transform this Wikipedia article into a marketing brochure for the utterly unproven E-Cat device. Cullen328Let's discuss it21:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I have been accused of being part of a cabal. If that is true, then I have not noticed my invitations to the cabal meetings, where I am sure the finest wines and hors d'oeuvre are served. Please forward those invitations to my email address. I love that kind of stuff and it seems like I have been missing out, much to my chagrin.
Here is a comparison to the language that the OP has proposed to add to the encyclopedia, alongside language from the press release issued by the company in question.
Proposed encyclopedia language:
"Industrial Heat LLC acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi’s E-Cat."
Corresponding press release language:
"Industrial Heat, LLC announced today that it has acquired the rights to Andrea Rossi's Italian low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technology, the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat)."
Proposed encyclopedia language:
"J. T. Vaughn, manager of Industrial Heat LL, and founder of Cherokee McDonough Challenge (an accelerator for environmental startups), noted that performance validation tests were conducted in the presence of their staff and validated by an independent expert before the rights were purchased."
Corresponding press release language:
Mr. Vaughn confirmed IH acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi's LENR device after an independent committee of European scientists conducted two multi-day tests at Rossi's facilities in Italy.
The published report by the European committee concluded, "Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources" [referring to energy output per unit of mass]. The report is available online at http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913. In addition, performance validation tests were conducted in the presence of IH personnel and certified by an independent expert.
...and later "JT Vaughn manages Industrial Heat. He is the founder of Cherokee McDonough Challenge, an accelerator for environmental startups, and a leader in the startup community in the Research Triangle.""
Proposed encyclopedia language:
" Vaughn said the firm is most interested in making the technology more widely available to universities, non-governmental organizations, and industry partnerships to further its development."
Corresponding press release language:
"They have committed to make it broadly available because of its potential for impact. IH is considering partnerships with industry participants, universities and NGO's to ensure the technology is developed in a thoughtful and responsible manner".
This is not neutral encyclopedia writing, but rather overly close paraphrasing of a non-neutral promotional press release issued by the investing company. If this is neutral encyclopedia writing, then someone should code a "Press release rewrite bot" to automate the process. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by JzG
The statement of the dispute is not neutral. In addition to begging the question, the claims which have "not been 100% backed up" have, in fact, been approximately 0% backed up, if not entirely debunked, according to reliable sources cited in the article. The group of "vociferous editors" has. between them, well over a quarter of a million edits to Wikipedia going back over ten years and includes one of the 500 most active Wikipedians and an admin with a decade of mop-wielding. This is not a dispute between long-time contributors with equal experience, it is a dispute between a relatively inexperienced editor and a number of very experienced editors, where the inexperienced editor insists that his, and only his, judgement of the application of WP:PAG is correct. Those of us with much more experience than the filing party could legitimately consider this quite rude. Instead we have taken great pains to explain the situation, alas without success. We are, of course, entirely used to seeing a steady stream of newcomers arriving at contended articles to "fix" our "bias" towards scientific rationalism - the term of art I usually use is "rebunking". See Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans for Jimbo's take on this.
The E-Cat is an implausible device which is promoted by Andrea Rossi, a convicted fraudster. He has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the scientific community, that the device works. From the lede:
The device has been the subject of demonstrations and tests several times, and commented on by various academics and others, but no independent tests have been made, and no peer-reviewed tests have been published. Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end."[10]
The article has been the focus of assiduous, if well-meaning, attempts to promote the device, using irrelevancies such as the award of a patent and articles based on press releases, misunderstood as independent sources.
Per WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia does not give equal weight to mainstream and fringe ideas. There is a non-trivial intersection with cold fusion, another article that has been the focus of relentless attempts by True Believers to use Wikipedia to change the real world, rather than reflect the real world in Wikipedia.
Most of the parties listed have spent forever explaining this to the minority who are in favour of boosting the probably-fraudulent product. There is no dispute, as such, just a steadfast refusal on the part of believers to accept consensus and policy. Robert perfectly exemplifies this by claiming that "the article should have a NPOV": in fact, it already does (and do look at his shouty FACT and REBUTTAL comments on the Talk page: this is WP:IDHT writ large). What he wants is a sympathetic point of view, which is non-neutral in the case of extraordinary claims made by fraudsters and not backed by robust evidence. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
(A1)(C1) Andy and Cullen incorrectly imply all data came from a press release. The news journalist interviewed personnel at the company to confirm data in the press release, and added other data. The fact this is a local business journal (which is part of a nationwide chain of business journals) does not invalidate it as a source.
(A2)(C2) Andy and Cullen say this is an improper attempt to sell a fraudulent product or company. However, nothing is being offered for sale, there are no inducements for investors (in fact, I talked to the company today and they are NOT accepting investors), and there are no promises of future sales. Thus, there is no financial promotion in the material I'm trying to post.
(A3) Andy is also prejudging the value of this investment, and implies that an investment of over $11 million in the company is not real, and the transfer of rights is worthless. The investment can be easily validated, and the company has already has filed an international patent, so it is in operation with the stated amount of capital. The company was formed specifically with respect to E-cat rights and development (although that of course does not preclude them from other types of investments).
(A4)(C3) Andy and Cullen also seem fixated on the fear that this is a surreptitious attempt to validate the E-cat as a workable system, or to say or imply that it is on the verge of being validated or made into a workable product. What the sources cited say is that some testing was done BEFORE rights were purchased. The article says they are doing further work on the system (specifically they are doing a one year test). None of this says it works or that it will be working shortly, only that they are working on it. This is certainly allowable. (To my mind, the proper Wikipedia course might have been to add a caution not to read too much into the company's work, since the E-cat may not be workable at all. Why didn't they pursue that instead of pursuing an extreme position?)
(G1) Guy says there are no independent tests of the E-cat, but that is NOT the dispute in question here. This is about business matters ... company, capital, goals, patent rights, etc. (One of the problems I've encountered is people trying to argue other issues in this section.)
(G2) The thrust of the article should have a NPOV; what I am seeing here is prejudging this section on irrelevant grounds. Further, there is a balance between consensus and validation of new concepts in science. If only consensus could be relied on, most of the advances in science wouldn't exist today. Thus, Wikipedia editors can't say something like "we won't allow information about ongoing research in a disputed area because the consensus is that it can't work"! (Anybody remember Galileo?)
Note -- I want this section to focus on only what is provable fact, and that includes company data as well as reasonable statements from company officers relative to the goal of the company. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't want people to read things into it that just aren't there.
(B1) Brian raises some important concerns, however, many of them go beyond the specifics of this dispute. At issue here is news relative to a different phase in the process of attempting to make E-cat a viable system. I maintain that a company (1) specifically created to work on the system (2) by people with a track-record of involvement in environmentally-oriented businesses (3) with a significant amount of capital and (4) also specifically acquiring legal rights to the system IS notable. Any company that is announcing it is working on a new product (for example, Elon Musk saying he is creating a company to develop HyperLoop and capitalizing it with significant capital) would deserve notice on the W page for "hyperloop" irrespective of the fact that it is not a proven technology. The basic facts of the attempt to work on the technology in a serious manner deserve notice. Such a notice should not be assumed to be "promotional", but rather specific, relevant news on the topic. Of course, later on there will be follow up ... either success or failure will be noted. 2606:6000:C882:6000:6418:5FAF:422:94D2 (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
(J1) JzG is not on topic, since this is about the business posting, not proof of the system.
(J2) Past performance of any group of people does not prove anything in this specific context, so this is a flawed argument. It's not worthless, but the specifics of the case must be used and a past record may be relevant at times. In general, it is best just to look at the case in hand.
(J3) Likewise, allegations that this is a fraud or scam need to be substantiated. Wild assertions like this do more harm than good, and also reduce his credibility, since it shows lack of NPOV.
(J4) JzG says I am looking for a sympathetic audience. What I am looking for is feedback on whether my contention that this business effort working on E-cat is postable news. To me, the whole topic is not closed science as he (and others) seem to suggest. I think that the assertion that there is 0% proof of LENR is flawed, there is an implication that it could NEVER be substantiated that is unwarranted, and that there are a number of physicists who have examined the issue who are not dismissing the idea out of hand. I think the fact that someone is taking this seriously enough to put significant money into the research effort now is important. Few significant things have been accomplished without investment of time and money. Thus, to me this is the current state of the E-cat. Now, if we did not want to include current information in the article -- say post only data that was three years old -- then that would be a reasonable standard to omit this business effort. However, I don't see any notice at the top of the article that says "Data here is three years old; for more current information look elsewhere." Using that standard, users would know that the W article would be generally accurate, but not up to date. That is a reasonable compromise when you don't know how things will turn out. However, it seems to me that the company's existence and effort are very signifiant to the current state of the E-cat and the currency of the article. (I also have to wonder, would we even be having this discussion if the Dept. of Energy announced a year-long study of the E-cat and I was posting that? Would the objectors be saying that this wasn't relevant as they are now doing to a private company doing the same thing? I have to wonder.) 2606:6000:C882:6000:6418:5FAF:422:94D2 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Could you please go through the above and remove the comments about other editors? I started to collapse the comments about other editors but found that I would have to collapse a bunch of material, mostly consisting of a few words. I collapsed the material after giving you ample time to edit it. We take the "only discuss article content, never user conduct" rule very seriously, because we want to break the cycle of doing what didn't work on the article talk page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ronz
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
As an editor that only recently became aware of the article (unless I've forgotten and the tools aren't working), I think the WP:BATTLE problems on the article talk page and here need to end, if we're to make any progress. I doubt anything short of bans/blocks will work. The article is under ArbCom sanctions, so such bans/blocks should be relatively easy through WP:AE. --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Putting aside the WP:BATTLE problems, the dispute concerns what, if anything, to include in the article about the purchase of i.p. and licensing rights for the device. The relevant policies here are WP:SOAP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:FRINGE; issues normally resolved by properly applying WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Note that there is no strong consensus (at least that I'm aware) for how to apply NOTNEWS - e.g. there is very little discussion on it at ArbCom. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Re "so that they can attempt to make it a viable device": Investment firms often use a small fraction of their funds for bluesky projects—they expect the money to be thrown away, but they invest anyway because 1-in-100 of their investments might hit the jackpot, and that would be rich reward for all the failed investments. Even if the device fails every test, the investment firm could still make money by selling their rights to yet another speculative investor. The topic is major WP:FRINGE and the article is not available to record every adjustment of the deck chairs—the topic of the article is a device that generates energy; it is not about the ups-and-downs of a company. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Energy Catalyzer discussion
Extended content
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose (just put {{drn-notice|Energy Catalyzer}} — ~~~~ at the bottom of their talk page) or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Also, it appears to me that there may be other editors who were involved in the discussion at the article talk page who have not been listed here. If such is the case, please list them and create opening statement sections for them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this or object to my involvement for any reason, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, THIS is embarrassing... Before I wrote the above I checked to confirm that I had not edited the page or talk page in question, but I must have made a mistake, because it turns out that I have, back in 2012.[2] Because of this, I am offering to withdraw as mediator if anyone involved wishes me to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
As long as (1) your earlier work was not closely related to this specific conflict, and (2) you believe that you can be neutral, I have no objections to you continuing to contribute to the resolution. In the interests fairness, you might want to disclose something about the earlier conflict. Robert92107 (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your votes of confidence. For the rest of you, it really is OK to object, and I won't take it personally. I think I can be fair about the current dispute, but then again I may very well be blind to my own bias. As A DRN volunteer (as opposed to when I join a discussion on a talk page as an ordinary editor) I try really hard not to take sides but rather to facilitate discussion. And I will say that from what I have read so far I have a generally favorable opinion of everyone involved in this dispute.
Re: disclosing something about the earlier conflict, I wouldn't really call it a conflict, because I thought both sides had some good points. As for specifics, in this edit,[3] I raised a question about sourcing for the claim of a factory in Florida. In this edit[4] I expressed an opinion on a proposed merge with another article. I would have to examine both articles as they exist now to decide if I still would support a merge. In this edit[5] I explained some common errors that people make when using "number of Google results" as evidence. In this edit,[6] I asked whether the Rossi energy amplifier is the same this as the Energy Catalyzer, and in this edit.[7] I defended Wikipedia's WP:OR policy. The two edits that seem most relevant to the current dispute are here[8][9] You can read the thread as it existed right before being archived here.[10] Search on the word "Macon" to see all my comments in context. Feel free to ask me "sharp" questions about any of the above edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I am still waiting for one last participant to either comment or indicate that he will not be participating before opening this up for discussion. I collapsed a bunch of comments about other editors, Feel free to remove the collapse and rewrite your comments so that they focus on article content, not user behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, everyone has made their initial comment, and I am opening this up for discussion. Based upon reading the article talk page and what went wrong there, I am going to try limiting the discussion to one issue at a time, and I would ask everyone to keep the responses short and to the point. Responding is OK, but please try to avoid a long back and forth thread. Say what you want to say once, let the other fellow have his say with a minimum of rebuttal, and give me time to mediate. I want to keep this discussion controlled and guided. You can, of course continue doing what you have been doing on the article talk page if you think the results will be different this time.
So, let's start with a simple question. Other than primary sources such as press releases and sources that reproduce press releases, do we have any sources for the material in question? Please note that I am not at this time implying that a press release alone merits or does not merit inclusion. Also, there is no need to comment at this`time as to quality of the sources listed. That will be my next question if there are any sources listed. Right now I just want to list all the known sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The answer to your straightforward question is similarly straightforward: no, we do not. Even if we did we would treat it with caution due to a long history of questionable claims by Rossi, but in this case it's not even borderline. The only source is a press release and churnalism based on that press release. Popular Science is an independent reliable source and finds no merit in Rossi's claims. They are extraordinary claims, of a kind that already ruined more than one career, and they are made by a convicted fraudster. It is right and proper to give more weight - substantially more - to this view than to credulous reporting or irrelevant factoids. The whole thrust seems to be to give an unwarranted impression of legitimacy.
This is a historical problem with all articles related to cold fusion, and it is not evil as such - people sincerely want it to be true, and want to reflect that belief on Wikipedia, but we follow the scientific consensus which will inevitably take some time to review and assimilate each new claim. Many articles on pseudoscience are besieged by "brand new research" that "proves" the claims, and that "brand new research" always turns out to be full of holes and not to change the scientific consensus. That's why we don't look to "breaking news", especially breaking news sourced directly from proponents of fringe claims, but instead wait until we have non-trivial independent commentary from which we can show both the claim and its reception and validity. Otherwise we risk misleading the reader by presenting unreviewed claims and giving trivial facts equal standing with thoughtful analysis. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The article you link is written by "Frank Acland, Publisher, E-Cat World" - a website that exists solely to promote Rossi and his claims. It is sponsored [11] by 'LENR Invest' - "a startup investment company focusing on the LENR field". [12] This is not independant sourcing - it is promotion by concerns with a direct financial interest in the promotion of 'LENR'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Obviously the editor of the publication would choose someone knowledgeable about the subject, which rather reduces the force of this argument. The question we should focus on is whether oilprice.com, who chose to publish this article, is a good source or not. Brian Josephson (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Now I have a question for the other side of this dispute. This being an encyclopedia, the fact that some editors think that the press release is significant and other don't think so is irrelevant. Any arguments, no matter how good, for or against the significance of he press release are irrelevant. All Wikipedia cares about is whether a reliable, independent secondary source says that the press release is significant. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:PRIMARY. Can anyone name anyone not connected to the companies in question who has gone on record as saying that the contents of the press release are significant or even true? Again, at this time I am just looking to see if such a source exists. If one does my next question will be about the quality of the source. -Guy Macon (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Now, now. As I said before, "at this time I am just looking to see if such a source exists. If one does my next question will be about the quality of the source." If I may digress, we have already had a bunch of back-and-forth comments such as the above on the article talk page, and they did not lead to resolving the dispute. Now we are trying something new: structured, mediated questions and answers. Please let me address the notorious/dubious/significant issue in my next question. I have a meeting so this will will take a few hours. meanwhile, keeping in mind that I am at this time just collecting a list of all known/alleged secondary sources and will evaluate the quality in my next question, are there any others or is that it? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I've been searching, but not well enough to notice the popsci article until after it was posted above.
I've found no reliable sources. I've been finding the press releases (sometimes presented as if they're something other than pr pieces), blog entries on what I assume are true believers' websites (though some look like pr campaigns), and skeptics identifying it as the latest news in an ongoing scam. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you think the popsci ref is enough to justify a brief mention of the acquisition in the article? Also, looking at the press release, the claim "Since acquiring Rossi's technology, IH has engaged in a broad-based effort to protect it by preparing numerous patent applications related to the core technology as well as associated designs and uses." caught my eye. Not much we can do with that at this point, but eventually we should see one of the following: [A] A bunch of awarded patents. [B] A bunch of rejected patents. [C] No evidence that any patent was ever applied for. If the result is C, that would tell us that the new owner is doing the same thing Rossi was doing (remember the automated factory in Florida?). If the result is B that will be nothing new, and of course if the result is A it will no doubt result in a lot of press. If it really happens, the transition from a trade secret to a patent would be quite significant, because a patent is supposed to contain enough information to replicate the design -- you can build one to see if it works but you cannot sell it if it is patented. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Much as it would amuse me to include yet another popsci article calling out the E-Cat as a scam, I don't think so. This is essentially a financial story - popsci has limited expertise in that area and we've seen commentary above along the lines that companies like this often invest small sums such as that noted in pie-in-the-sky ideas on the basis that a tiny minority might pay of spectacularly. Without the context of how significant this is as an investment, all we know is that popsci sees it as Rossi stringing his scam along a little longer. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I would like a one-liner, using only the Popular Science article. It is remarkable that they have active investments going on. Readers should be made aware that this invention is not buried and dead (yet?). --Enric Naval (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There is greater consequence to this than initially meets the eye, and the wider picture needs assessment. Basically, Robert92107 advocates using the information because as he says above he believes "this is significant news re E-cat development". Significant to whom? Well obviously, to the E-cat developers. It is not significant to Wikipedia -- we are not in a hurry, and we aren't in the business of promoting something that might never work. The last thing we need is for Wikipedia to appear to be inferring that because venture capital has been invested the development/production of E-cat is assured. Gosh, look at the much touted orbital engine which the international media orgasmed over for years. Investors threw millions at the project, but the engine was a dud. Even so, the inventor became a billionaire, albeit though other ventures, but riding on that upsurge of free publicity. We have to make sure we are not about to do what the unconscionable media willingly did for the unworkable orbital engine. Moriori (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a false comparison. Now we know that the orbital engine, whatever that may have been, didn't make it. We don't know what will happen in the case of the e-cat. If it becomes clear that it isn't going to work, then clearly its significance will drop to near zero and probably the article should be deleted and replaced by brief mention in the CF article. With the e-cat article containing so much hostile to the e-cat as it is, the w'pedia article as such is hardly going to make people rush to invest! Brian Josephson (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Brian. We can't know in advance if this effort will be a dud. If the past is prologue, it will be -- but it may not. My issue is basically that I'm trying to keep the article current. Is the intent of the article to only list current events which relate to proving or disproving the technology? Why then are patents listed at all? If we list patents, then wouldn't it also be reasonable to list business issues (including patent rights assignments) re the device? 2606:6000:C882:6000:8041:861B:2B11:6BBB (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
You both need to read what I actually said. I never said we couldknow in advance whether this is a dud or not. I object to using questionable referencing to promote any unproved product, and believe in this particular case we could tread carefully and slowly. Moriori (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment by another uninvolved but interested editor
Withdrawal. Since it has become apparent that Guy Macon's ideas as to what constitute appropriate input from a moderator don't accord with mine, I am withdrawing from this discussion. Not only is it being unnecessarily extended beyond the original disagreement over specific text cited to specific sources, but we now have Guy engaging in off-topic speculation about the significance or otherwise of hypothetical patent applications by Industrial Heat. Such input can do nothing but muddy the waters, and make the prompt resolution of what should be a simple issue much less likely. Furthermore, I see no useful purpose in further participation anyway, since policy concerning promotional material is entirely clear - and statements about the purchase of unspecified 'intellectual property rights' for an unspecified sum of money can only ever be promotional, since they are devoid of meaningful content. This is puffery, and policy precludes it being added to the article. Policy which cannot be overruled by anything said here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Please cite your specific reference in Wikipedia which shows this specific announcement is "promotional". As I said before, since I see no financial gain being able to be derived from this announcement, I do not see why it is not essentially a business news announcement, of which there are numerous ones in Wikipedia. Please do, since I really would like to understand why you say this. You appear to be much more knowledgeable re Wikipedia rules and standards than I. My argument is basically based on common sense and what I've seen in Wikipedia. 2606:6000:C882:6000:8041:861B:2B11:6BBB (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm willing to leave the Moderator to decide whether the above assertion, Statements about the purchase of unspecified 'intellectual property rights' for an unspecified sum of money can only ever be promotional, since they are devoid of meaningful content, is a valid statement or not. In any case, the links give more detail. Brian Josephson (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy on the above question is clear -- it depends. If unknown company one is buying the right to unknown product from unknown company two, then no. If Microsoft and Apple announced that Microsoft was buying the intellectual property rights to the iPhone for an unspecified sum of money, that information would have zero chance of being excluded from Wikipedia on the basis of being promotional. The material we are discussing in this case could go either way. On the one hand there is the argument that this is just the latest in a long string of promotional claims from a source that is notable for making previous promotional claims that were outright lies. On the other hand, Andrea Rossi saying that he has sold the intellectual rights to the Energy Catalyzer seems like a significant fact that our readers would want to know, just as Popular Science decided that it was a significant fact that their readers would want to know. I think we should discuss this a bit more. I am hoping that with a bit more guided discussion we can reach a compromise that is acceptable to all. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
At a glance, I'm not seeing anything I didn't review before I made my comment above where I said I was unable to find other reliable sources. If I've overlooked something, please identify them specifically.
As I noted on the article talk page, I think the new popsci article is enough for inclusion of some mention. I hope we can shortly move on to what is due for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I could not find other reliable sources either. As long as there is regular media attention/significance with this topic - I would vote for an inclusion.
I also understand Andys and others POV that an inclusion would be "riding a dead horse". But there are too many riders and there is no consensus.Fritz194 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
(1) Andrea Rossi did not make the announcement. Some editors say he is unreliable, however, since he did not announce the sale, this objection is moot.
(2) The sources cited in my text are a reliable business press release service and a component of a nationwide chain of local business journals which said they talked directly to the company. So, the bare facts are not in dispute.
(3) Rossi has also indicated in interviews that now IH LLC is involved in the testing and work on the device, so clearly there is also direct confirmation from the inventor.
(4) I could always contact the company and ask for a reconfirmation of the sale data. As I mentioned earlier, I talked to them about a week ago, and asked if shares in the company were for sale, and they said no. I will do so if others require this. 2606:6000:C882:6000:8041:861B:2B11:6BBB (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. IH LLC should not be able to file a patent on E-Cat technology if they haven't acquired the rights. I would like to see a link to the patent application, but it does appear to answer the "did the sale of rights really happen" question (which really wasn't at issue here). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think everyone has said pretty much what they wanted to say, so I am going to take a quick straw poll:
Brian Josephson, yes I will be doing more than simply counting votes, but on the other hand the straw poll is not an RfC. It is for the sole purpose of telling me whether further discussion will be helpful or whether I should close this and refer the dispute to the next step in dispute resolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Fritz194, I realize that the above is a lighthearted question, but it does have a serious answer. When we set up DRN we purposely gave the DRN volunteer mediators zero power other than guiding the discussion on this page, collapsing or deleting comments made here, and in extreme cases such as persistent vandals asking someone to leave the discussion. If anyone ends up being brought up before ANI or arbcom because they, in good faith, expressed an opinion that the disputed material should definitely be included or excluded, I will ask the admins to please make a decision excluding anything said here, and in the past they have been really cooperative when a DRN volunteer mediator makes such a request. As I hope you can see from my comments here, I am not favoring either side in this dispute, and I really don't care what you folks agree on. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 001
STRAW POLL: SHOULD INFORMATION ABOUT THE ACQUISITION BE ALLOWED IN THE ARTICLE?
Keep it out
Not covered in the financial press, sole independent source is PopSci (already cited as highly critical). Relevance has never been demonstrated, neither has objective significance. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Compromise is not possible when a source is characterized as "a reliable business press release service" because press releases from any source are never adequate reliable sources for any significant assertions especially regarding highly controversial topics. Truly significant press releases generate significant coverage in independent, reliable sources which include original reporting. There are quite a few high quality national and international media outlets which do independent reporting on business developments, and so far, this specific investment has been pretty much ignored, and no independent sources describe it as important or significant in any way. If better quality sources are published, then, of course, I will reconsider. Until then, extreme caution about promotional editing of this article is entirely justified. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Prefer keeping it out, but willing to compromise and accept allowing it
(Add a short comment and your signature here)
Prefer allowing it, but willing to compromise and accept keeping it out
This is a significant development (see my comment above).
media that are in other respects perfectly respectable have seen fit to report on this development
organisations do put out announcements of their business in this way and one should not see these as specifically promotional: the argument that it cannot be included as it is promotional material is of a convoluted/tendentious character. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Allow
IH is a legitimate company, registered with the SEC, connected to a highly respectable regional (if not National or International) businessman (Darden, Cherokee Investments).
IH has been reported on by at least one reliable regional newspaper (Triangle News)
At the very least, it either refutes the last sentence of the Lead Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end."" (which itself is NOT a good summary of the Featherstone article) ... OR it is newsworthy as evidence that Rossi has more recently "conned" a group of investors out of $11M. If the former, then the lead should also be changed as out of date. Alanf777 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
After the straw poll, I plan of closing this as being either successful or failed. Please ask yourself whether you can bring yourself to putting your name in one of the "willing to compromise" sections; There is a rumor that Wikipedia will give me a 10% raise (from $0.00 to $0.00) if we can resolve this dispute. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The wording "willing to compromise" is offensive. It's fine to compromise about many things, but the above suggests that someone choosing "keep it out" or "accept" is a warrior who is unable to compromise. Actually, the situation is that puffery is not suitable in articles on WP:FRINGE topics—that position is standard and does not indicate an unwillingness to compromise, and you are offering false hope to people who are unfamiliar with how things are done here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Johnuniq, with all due respect, you are assuming as a fact something that there you appear to have no evidence to support. A neutrally-worded paragraph about the acquisition supported by a citation to the popular science coverage of same would not be puffery. (I am not taking sides on whether it should be included, just pointing out that the above argument for exclusion is invalid) If we were to just quote the press release, that would be puffery, but the answer to that is not to automatically exclude the information but rather to` report what reliable secondary sources say about it instead of relying solely on a self-published primary source like a press release.
As one other DRN volunteer mediator recently observed[15] and as has been the finding in several recent arbcom cases, we don't just have one problem here (fringe proponents including poorly-sourced positive material against NPOV). We actually have two problems. The other problem is skeptics who exclude properly-sourced positive material against NPOV. As my fellow DRN volunteer mediator Robert McClenon wrote when commenting on this case:
"We have uncivil or NOT HERE editors who want to insert fringe content, and we also have editors who are willing to be uncivil and to go to any length to defend against fringe content (never mind that there is a place in Wikipedia for the fringe) [and] to sacrifice other core principles [...]"
I agree with the above, and I believe most or all of the other DRN volunteers would agree as well. Again, I am not saying that I favor inclusion or exclusion. I am just saying that there is no Wikipedia policy that requires us to decide either way, and thus it is an editorial decision to be decided by consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Question may be: is the source of the PR (Cherokee McDonough Challenge) a reliable source? Google search certainly makes it look like they aren't reliable . . . like they don't have any money, no track record. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Excellent question. The source of the press release[16] appears to be Cherokee Investment Partners LLC, not the Cherokee-McDonough Challenge Team.[17][18] CIP is one of North Carolina's largest venture-capital firms [19][20][21][22][23][24](PDF). If you look at the bottom of [ http://cherokeechallenge.com/ ] you will see that a link to [ http://cherokeefund.com/ ]. Here is some info from a couple of non-reliable sources[25][26] that appear to have gotten the basic facts right. I think that Citrix and Red Hat might be involved[27] but I haven't researched it enough to draw that conclusion yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday, TenOfAllTrades made an interesting argument for exclusion on the article talk page, which I am reproducing here with his permission. Please note that I am not taking sides or endorsing his argument, but I think he makes some points that we should discuss. Here is what he wrote: --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Earlier this year, I and other editors realized that this was a problematic state of affairs. Wikipedia was being used as a promotional (or at least highly-credulous) blog of announcements, rather than engaging in any sort of critical analysis or maintaining sensible editorial oversight and judgement. At the time, the article contained a claim that BlackLight Power (BLP) had reached a licensing agreement with an electric utility to supply up to 250 MW of electricity and/or cogenerated heat. Ultimately, it was decided to remove the claim from our article because there was very little information about the deal, and no evidence that anything meaningful had ever resulted from the licensing agreement in terms of energy production, installed equipment, or anything else. (And BlackLight Power is a paragon of openness and transparency compared to the E-Cat, Industrial Heat, and Rossi.)
It looks like the E-Cat is carrying on exactly the same way: announcements followed by silence, over and over again, with no apparent institutional 'memory' of what they've announced before. We should treat their announcements in the same way—no additional coverage until their claims are independently substantiated. We're not the E-Cat blog. If an announcement isn't important enough to warrant follow-up my credible, major news outlets, then the announcement probably wasn't important to begin with. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
This is what I was working my way towards with the previous discussion about patents. It has been a while since the announcement we are discussing. What are the patent numbers? Where is the major coverage in multiple news outlets that a major development like this should generate? Where is the evidence that Rossi is acting the way people normally act when they sell the right to an invention -- either walking away or being hired by the new owners? Any evidence of the new owners taking over the existing web sites and redirecting them to their own sites? These are things I would expect to see.
I would like to welcome Alanf777, who just added himself to this case (which of course we encourage) and made some insightful comments in the straw poll above. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment by Uninvolved but Interested Volunteer - I have been reading this case for several days and the comment by TenOfAllTrades is an issue that bothers me with this case also. I grew up in the era of Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book etc, which have essentially been replaced now by Wikipedia as the number one most read Encyclopedia. One thing those encyclopedia's did, which I think Wikipedia also has a responsibility to do is they did not have content that could be construed as advertising or a blog, to use the modern term, even reporting products they did so from an historical perspective. So I agree with this users statements that before including information about such deals they should be history, not ongoing, not looking like marketing or a blog. As a scientist I do not find E-Cat convincing but the Fringe Science or whatever side of it is not my issue, but I do think it is important to stand our ground on these issues and produce encyclopaedic content, not a blog or series of news reports. Just my two cents. Faendalimastalk02:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
We have lots of problems with articles about cold fusion and have for a long time. The main issues have migrated away from the cold fusion page and into the pages of scams such as this one and two others which have Wikipedia pages: Blacklight Power and Steorn. Neutral evaluations of these companies all show them to be shady and problematic, basically in the business of scamming investors, but that means that there is incentive for supporters to come in and try to skew content to fit a positive spin for these companies. We need to guard against this kind of hucksterism. jps (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Closing comment
It does not look like further discussion will lead to an agreement, and while there is no policy-based reason for excluding the material there is clearly no consensus here or on the article talk page for adding the material.
There are other dispute resolution steps that anyone involved is free to try (see WP:DRR for a list). In my opinion the likely result will of any RfC will be that there is no consensus for adding the material. Anyone who wishes to pursue this further should be prepared to find a flaw in the the argument made by TenOfAllTrades on the article talk page or success will be unlikely.
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.
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. The general discussion here has been very slight, but more significantly, the filing editor has not engaged in the discussion at all. This may very well be futile as well, since significant participants have said that they do not feel this is ready for dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:41, 24 September 2015 (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.
I have seen here , on 'Hosur ' article a lot of dispute going on languages.
In 'hosur' article demographics, FriendRahul has added relevant content with proper citations.
But the Admin /other users influenced by Tamil language community are continously reverting his data.
Also, no proper reasons being given to him.
In short, FriendRahul claim 'Telugu' is majorly spoken language
Users like 'SpacemanSpiff' claim Tamil is majorly spoken language.
I can see user 'Vensatry' replying to 'FriendRahul'as below
"
. The population of Hosur in 2001 was 84,394. The break up is as follows – Tamil (45,237), Telugu (21,943), Urdu (7,813) and Kannada (6,158). It's fairly evident that the Telugu population is not even half of Tamil. The 2011 data is yet to be released. But then, it's very unlikely that the Telugu population has grown to such an extent that it constitutes about 40-50% in 2011. The source lies "
But the fact is the sources e attached is routing to census website of govt of india.
And no where these figures of breakup is mentioned in the website. If he is genuine please ask him to show the exact page where there figures are mentioned.
Also, even accoding to their data(irrespective of true/false), 'malayalam' is no where found in count except very few speakers.
But in article, they mentioned as below.
"along with significant population using Telugu or Malayalam as mother tongue"
Also, they reverted the data source of wikitravel cited by FriendRahul.
They blocked the user.
Please do the needful else this issue being related to a majority community in hosur, it will hurt their sentiments and could lead to complaining on this data .
There are other disputes by other users on this article over the same topic 'telugu language'
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have observed many users fighting on this article with same language topic
How do you think we can help?
cross check proper citations and also wikitravel website.
resolve this dispute.
No data supports the current content. Please ask the reverting people to show exact page where their claim is genuine on census of india website.
if they are unable to show it please block their rights for misusing
Summary of dispute by Vensatry
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Firstly, there are no reliable sources brought up by the user in question. The source which I had quoted at the talk page is available as a downloadable file (Excel). Lastly, the user has been indef. blocked, so we shouldn't encourage sockpupptery as SpacemanSpiff says. Thanks, —Vensatry(ping)12:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by FriendRahul
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SpacemanSpiff
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This isn't for DRN, no reliable sources have been brought by the filing party -- I have no problem at all with adding the content if it's reliably sourced but I've shown why these sources aren't proper for it, but from the talk page it looks like Vensatry has sources directly contradicting what the filer has to say. Also, the filer has been blocked indefinitely per WP:NLT, so we shouldn't be encouraging sockpuppetry here. Thanks for the notification Dr Crazy 102. —SpacemanSpiff11:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Hosur#Hosur and_Telugu_language discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Notified editors related to discussion (and not currently blocked) of DRN discussion being opened. FriendRahul has not been notified due to an indef block. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer note - While there has been discussion on the talk page, it has not been extensive (and some of that discussion was by an editor who has been indefinitely blocked). I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but am suggesting that it be declined until there is more discussion on the talk page. If discussions continue and do not resolve the issue, refiling is permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer reply - Agreed, there have been six or so individual comments made by the editors listed, 3 by FriendRahul (indef.), 2 by Spaceman and one by Vensatry (roughly). Not enough to be called "extensive" by most editors IMO, though it is a start. I will close tomorrow with that reasoning unless any of the involved editors, or other volunteers, have objections. Thanks, Drcrazy102 (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
:w:ru:Обсуждение
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
As discussed on ANI here, this is about an issue taking place on the Russian-language Wikipedia, which is not something that can be discussed through the English Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods-- moreover, we at DRN have no authority to sanction editors in any Wikipedia. I would recommend seeking out the proper dispute resolution venues on the Russian Wikipedia if there is an issue. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎12:47, 25 September 2015 (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.
I need help dealing with an abusive user OneLittleMouse (that's not me calling him names, that's his real user name) who has been indiscriminately deleting my articles and bullying me with inappropriate warnings.
He deleted some of my articles mere seconds after I posted them! So obviously he is NOT reviewing them but rather blankly and blatantly deleting them.
One article I posted had the very bare minimum of words and a hangon request yet still he deleted it immediately!
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Stop deleting my articles!
How do you think we can help?
Stop him!
Summary of dispute by OneLittleMouse
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MarkYabloko
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
:w:ru:Обсуждение|Обсуждение
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.
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 26 September 2015 (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.
Zoltan_Bukovszky claims that Léon Blum held the title of French Co-Prince of Andorra, as listed at Léon_Blum, List_of_state_leaders_in_1947, and elsewhere. I dispute this, and demand removal of this claim from the articles, or else provision of a Reliable Source supporting it.
In the case of the Léon_Blum article, we must neither claim he held the title, nor list him in Category:Jewish Monarchs. Nor should his name appear in the article List_of_state_leaders_in_1947.
I've been reverted twice but I stopped short of 3RR. There has been limited discussion on ZB's User talk page which shifted to an article Talk page, but ZB seems to have given up the discussion and not commented in a while. This is where things stand now.
In his argument, ZB claims that a source (rulers.org) and others support Blum-as-CoPrince, based on ZB's belief that "all French heads of state are Co-Prince of Andorra ex officio", therefore so was Blum. I disagree because:
1. none of ZB's sources outright claim Blum was Co-Prince; one has to deduce it by drawing a logical conclusion based on several claims in different portions of the source which I view as WP:SYNTH
2. Rulers.org and ZB's other two sources are not WP:RS. They appear to be labors of love by devoted amateurs who self-publish impressively long works but have no notoriety as historians.
3. The Andorran site www.coprince-fr.ad/ca/coprinceps-francesos appears official, and does not list Blum in their list of French Co-Princes from 1265 to the present. I consider this definitive.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
1. Posted at User Talk:Zoltan_Bukovszky (no response there)
2. Added [dubious – discuss] to article section claiming Blum was Co-Prince, linked it to Talk page
3. Replied to Zoltan at Talk:List of state leaders in 1947#French_Co-prince_of_Andorra, which was started by ZB. Wrote several replies with more info each time, never heard back.
4. Searched the Andorran ccTLD (.ad) hunting for "official" looking pages, came up with www.coprince-fr.ad/ca/coprinceps-francesos which doesn't list Blum
How do you think we can help?
In a nutshell, I'd like 3rd party opinions on the dispute so we can either continue sans Zoltan to a natural conclusion, or else declare it over and the challenge upheld. We cannot force an editor to engage in a discussion if they do not wish to, but it still may be that my view is incorrect and perhaps other editors might agree with ZB's views and further his PoV. So I'm looking for editors to engage on ZB's behalf, or else agree that it's over, and we can remove Blum's name from the list.
Summary of dispute by Zoltan_Bukovszky
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
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.
No extensive discussion prior to request on DRN; also, arbitration of any kind is discussed at Admin Noticboard (AN), AN/I or at ArbCom (worst case scenario), not at any of the mediation venues which do not issue "binding resolutions". Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2015 (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.
On the Dash (cryptocurrency) page, anonymous users from forums and blogs are used as sources for information in the last part of the History section. This appears to violate the rules against using self-published sources. The language of the edits also use poor grammar, spelling, and weasel words. I've tried adding templates indicating such until suitable sources can be found, and attempted to direct the discussion to the Talk page. The editor repeatedly removes my edits and/or replaces them with another questionable source and does not respond to discussions.
Some sort of formal arbitration is likely needed to avoid edit warring since the editor in question seems uncooperative and refuses to engage in discussion.
Summary of dispute by 75.93.11.94
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
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.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Medicine
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Sorry, but we cannot address disputes that center on another editor's conduct-- we can only moderate content disputes. If there is an editor behavior issue, it is normally recommended to open a thread at the WP:ANI board to have such behavior examined-- though if you do, you will need to provide evidence of editor misbehavior using Diff links to offending posts, and bear in mind that all parties to the dispute will be scrutinized by onlookers at that venue, regardless of who filed. ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎19:15, 2 October 2015 (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.
I wrote an article about Shielding Lotions and immediately it was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was "promotional" and "not notable". Apparently there was a previous article by the same name that had been deleted for those reasons. In any event, after I addressed these criticisms, a new criticism arose, that the article was an attempt at neologism. I showed that the terminology had been in use since the 60's as a classification of lotions. After this I was accused of being a paid writer. I assure you I am not.
The main critic in this whole slew of criticisms has been QuackGuru. He has persisted in attacking everything about this article in an aggressive and combative nature. After the article was merged with Barrier Cream, I began adding citations and QuackGuru followed me there to tag my citations and argue on the article's talk page.
I don't know what his problem is or why he's so OCD about this but it's getting frustrating. I am trying to make positive contributions and he's making it extremely difficult for me to do.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried to resolve it with him and have also expressed my concerns to others involved in the discussions. In fact, one editor suggested that he back off and stop being combative.
How do you think we can help?
I honestly don't know. I just want to be able to contribute here without having everything I add attacked. I happen to be a dermatopathologist with over 15 years professional experience and I believe I could be an asset here. But this current problem is making it extremely difficult.
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Medicine 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.
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires recent extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. However, the filing party may also wish to consider the effect of this section of the Consensus policy and give serious consideration to filing a RFC to bring additional editors into the discussion to help determine consensus on this issue. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:46, 3 October 2015 (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.
I'll try to make this as short as possible. Relevant sections for the dispute are Template_talk:Caliphate#Spiritual caliphates;Template_talk:Caliphate#New template and Template_talk:Caliphate#Content disupte;User talk:Peaceworld111#July 2015. This version Khestwol wants to keep; and this is my last edited version. This dispute runs over many months and the only active disputant to my edit is perhaps Khestwol. The real difference between my version and that of Khestwol's is that I have added more caliphates and related features of caliphates. In a number of edit summaries, Khestwol appears to have an issue with "major changes", as apparently no consensus has been established. However, from what I understand, the only issue Khestwol has is with the addition of the "Ahmadiyya Caliphate". I say this because, Khestwol doesn't really have any issue with major changes, as he/she explicitly states in User talk:Peaceworld111#July 2015 that "I will be happy if you not again add ISIL, and also the Ahmadiyya Caliphate for that matter". When requested to give a reason, he/she wouldn't give any, with the exception that 'there has been no consensus' to add it, as seen in edit summaries/multiple comments. (Note that Khestwol also disputes the addition of "ISIL claim", but I didn't add that, so let's ignore that for the moment).
Perhaps I should try to place some context. Ahmadiyya is an Islamic denomination, often persecuted and considered "non-Islamic" by some orthodox sects, which incidentally has an (spiritual) caliphate. As an experienced editor on Ahmadiyya related pages, I have often encountered editors (including relatively experienced editors), who have attempted to establish in Wikipedia voice that it is a "non-Muslim sect", including through DRN.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
TP discussions
How do you think we can help?
Read/Discuss/add suggestions; although I think it's a simple case.
Summary of dispute by Khestwol
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Template talk:Caliphate discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - While there was discussion on the talk page more than a month ago, there has been no recent (within the past month) discussion. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but am recommending that it be declined without prejudice due to a lack of recent discussion, and that discussion resume on the talk page. If the discussion continues and is not conclusive, a new request for moderated discussion can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
