Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 101#Asian American

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Jinishans|21:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Futile or abandoned. No participation by one primary opponent and indication of disinterest by other. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2015/March#PoK_as_title_or_Anything_related_to_disputed}}

Users involved

• {{User|Jinishans}}
• {{User| TopGun}}
• {{User| Mar4d}}

Dispute overview

I would like to include in Azad Kashmir page that it's also called as Pakistan occupied Kashmir or just Kashmir instead of 'Azad Kashmir' which means Free Kashmir, which is not true as per the Instrument of Accessionto say the FACT about Azad Kashmir, which is what Wikipedia is for I believe. Entire Jammu and Kashmir is considered as part of India and it's a state of India. Either we should move Azad Kashmir page under Jammu and Kashmir page or change the name of Azad Kashmir to just Kashmir, but a part occupied by Paskistan can't be termed as Free Kashmir which is not true and there's no document to prove that as well similar to Instrument of Accession.

And, as there's a representation of Pakistan's view in Jammu and kashmir page mentioned as 'Indian occupied Kashmir', I merely wanted to add 'Pakistan occupied Kashmir' in 'Azad Kashmir' page which is how this part of the land is called within India and widely around the media and world from indian standpoint and Instrument of Accession document, which they're undoing again and again.

Also, I added the link to Instrument of Accession and Accession Day in the exising Azad Kashmir page, which is also deleted by few users from Pakistan's most right wing political party PTI, they're trying to own this page Azad Kashmir and doesn't allow Instrument of Accession and Accession Day link added in the introduction paragraph.

More over, these few users requested to discuss this under Talk page of Azad kashmir, which i'm doing respecting their word, but they started bringing in more from this right wing PTI party of Pakistan and threaten me that they'll block me for edits and from Wikipedia itself. I'm not sure why they're doing this, which shows their intolerance to anyone when adding facts to this disputed page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

As i'm a novice and new to Wikipedia edits, trying to respect their views, discussing in Azad kashmir page as per their request, but they're threatening me they can stop me and ban me from editing.

How do you think we can help?

I'm simply asking we need to add the factual document page Instrument of Accession and Accession Day links in first paragraph with one line under Azad Kashmir page.

Secondly, asking them to change the title of the page to just kashmir instead of Azad (in hindi Free) kashmir, which isn't true. If not, let's just merge it with the bigger jammu and kashmir page.

Also, we need to have 'pakistan occupied kashmir' added in this 'Azad kashmir' page apart from changing the title.

I'm not really sure what was the point of opening this DRN? The title of the page is not going to be changed, and you know why. We've explained to you how that would be a violation of Wikipedia's strictly WP:NPOV policy. Just because India regards the Instrument of Accession as legal does not make Azad Kashmir a part of India. The international and Pakistani perspective is different. We can't promote India's point of view over others. And your proposal for merging Azad Kashmir under Jammu and Kashmir shows you are a new editor, have little knowledge of editing on Wikipedia and still have a lot to learn. Mar4d (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Azad Kashmir}} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

:@TransporterMan, The new editor has not been contrib at all since 24 October. My own background is from Interwiki Wikiprojects if you need a translation of what is on the Pakistan (Arabic) version of this page. If no response from that filing editor in 24 hrs you may be justified to close here as stale. FelixRosch (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Piandme|22:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=This dispute is primarily about user conduct, not content. Biblioworm 23:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|User_talk:Piandme}}

Users involved

• {{User|Piandme}}
• {{User| Sandstein}}

Dispute overview

I have been having a dispute with the user over whther a fansite could be used as a refernce in a particular instant. When trying to calmly resolve the issue with the user he called the sorce "trash", which I found insulting, and questioned the website's integrity. Whilst I understand that the website actually shouldn't be used, I felt the aggressive manner in which the adminstrator tried to resolve the problem. When I asked him questions they were ignored.

I later made a couple of changes to articles he had edited as I felt his changes were incorrect I was issued a vandalism warning. I am very upset about this as my edits were made in good faith, and the fact that he had been the editor involved in these oages made him biased in this particular instant. I coudn't believe how I was being treated, and had to report him to stop him persisting.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss the issue with the user, but he won't discuss it with me reasonably.

How do you think we can help?

I hope that you will be able to stop the user abusing his powers as an administrator, and remind the user how to speak to others. I couldn't believe how I was being spoken to.

Hello, Piandme. I'm Biblioworm, a volunteer here at the DRN. While we appreciate you bringing this to the attention of the community, the DRN exists to resolve content disputes, not conduct disputes. The more appropriate place to post this is WP:ANI. As a result, I'll have to close this case. Regards, --Biblioworm 23:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{DRN archive top|Both of the editors active in this dispute agree it has been resolved, other issues have been discussed and agreed on, so nothing more for us to do. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|Mihaister|22:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Electronic cigarette#Violation_of_consensus}}

Users involved

• {{User|Mihaister}}
• {{User| Zad68}}
• {{User| QuackGuru}}
• {{User| KimDabelsteinPetersen}}
• {{User| CheesyAppleFlake}}
• {{User| AlbinoFerret}}
• {{User| Alexbrn}}
• {{User| Jmh649}}

Dispute overview

Statements attributed to a reliable source [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12730/abstract] continue to be removed from the article. The group of editors arguing against the use of this source challenge its reliability per WP:MEDRS, while making exceptions for other sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Placement_of_Offerman], which are of clearly lesser quality. This creates the impression that a double-standard is being applied here, wherein statements in favor of a particular POV are being promoted based on marginal sources, while evidence against the preferred POV and based on higher quality sources is being suppressed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

An extensive discussion and apparent consensus had been reached previously [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_10#Consensus_for_adding_this], but the discussion has recently been re-opened using the same arguments as before following introduction of the text in the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Violation_of_consensus]

How do you think we can help?

It has been suggested [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=631934568&oldid=631933914 here] that an outside opinion may help settle the matter. It does not look to me that the current impasse can be solved without external assistance.

The Dispute overview statement {{tq|Statements attributed to a reliable source continue to be removed from the article}} starts by assuming the conclusion, and if that is to be focus of this DRN discussion--that the McNeill article must be assumed to be reliable and worthy of inclusion as the starting point--I am disinclined to participate here. I never suggested taking this to DRN because we already had a very thorough, lengthy discussion about McNeill here which in my evaluation came to no consensus to include. I suggested several times [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=631933572][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=631933682][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=631934568] that those who did feel that discussion resulted in a positive consensus to include should seek an outside, uninvolved experienced editor to review and close that discussion--the attempt to open up the discussion anew here seems like WP:FORUMSHOP. Zad68 00:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"That was not a review and it was rejected."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=631801997] The current discussion on the talk page is at Talk:Electronic cigarette#Violation of consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mdann52, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine can determine whether the source meets WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it strange that an single attributed statement concerning a peer-reviewed response, in a respected journal (Addiction), from experts on the topic, to what is a grey literature report, that cites these experts, cannot be used. The source is a WP:MEDRS by all measures that apply, and the arguments against its usage seem to be either in the "i don't like it category" or non arguments such as "there is no consensus" (which works just as well in reverse: "there is no consensus against") or "it is not a review" (which is baffling since reviews aren't required per MEDRS or practice in the article).

So all in all in baffled about the resistence to this source. --Kim D. Petersen 13:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

McNiel is a critique the Grana report by some of the authors of the studies used in Grana. It reviews those statements and conclusions of Grana pointing out errors in how their work was used and the faulty conclusions reached because of this. A normal part of a review process is when something is published, articles are published pointing out the errors it makes. McNeil is WP: MEDRS, it was published in a peer reviewed journal, and reviews the conclusions Grana reached. An agreement on use was made.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=629061777 diff1][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=629061870 diff2][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=629072773 diff3] But reasons, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=629072773 that it hasn't appeared by analog publishing] has been used to keep it out. The review has now been printed, but the use of McNeil [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=631937836&oldid=631937704 is still reverted.]

The article suffers from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#RfC:_Do_we_need_a_POV_tag_and_if_so_where_should_it_be_placed a negative POV] and there is a lot of resistance for including anything that isn't a negative statement, but almost any marginal source can be used to make negative claims. Even going to far as to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#American_Society_of_Heating.2C_Refrigerating_and_Air_Conditioning_Engineers place and argue ASHRAE] or the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers and allowing the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#AIHA_white_paper American Industrial Hygiene Association to be used] as citations to make negative health claims.

I must say this filing deserves some kind of prize for non-neutral wording!

Anyway, when this was raised in Talk I [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_10#Is_McNeill_a_WP:MEDRS_source.3F proposed] some wording that could be used and which is close to the text that's been added/reverted. I remain unpersuaded however that inclusion would be WP:DUE; the problem is that we would be using a weaker source to contaminate a stronger one, and that goes against the grain of WP:MEDRS and of our general requirements for neutrality. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a journal club not a review article. Thus not a high quality source per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

:Hi all, I am Mdann52, a volenteer at the noticeboard, however this gives me no special standing in the dispute. Looking at the source and comments above, the main issues appear to be over the reliability of the source being used, ignoring the content of the edits at this time. May I suggest, as this dispute hinges on one source, that it is discussed over at WP:RS, where it is likely to recieve wider input from people who are generally fairly good at this?

:Looking at the content of the edit in question, there appears to be some question over WP:UNDUE. Reading through the article, there seems to be an overall negetive tone; Will including this really violate NPOV if the source turns out to be fine? Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 15:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

::Hi Mdann52 and thanks for taking a look at this dispute. Let me comment on the issue of WP:WEIGHT first. The authors of the McNeill article felt so strongly about the misuse, misrepresentation, and misinterpretation of their research that they wrote a letter to WHO to explain the evidence [http://nicotinepolicy.net/documents/letters/MargaretChan.pdf]. If this does not deserve weight, I don't know what does. Then they summarized their arguments and published this peer-reviewed secondary article addressing the same issues: the misinterpretations of their own work (and others'). As far as WP:RS, the article is a secondary source published in the top journal appropriate for the topic. The authors are respected experts and research leaders in public health. Ann McNeill, the lead author, even served on WHO advisory committees regarding tobacco topics.

Since much of the current article on e-cigarettes is build on these misrepresentations of the evidence by Grana, many of which are addressed by the McNeill article, the only way to restore NPOV is to qualify all statements attributed to Grana with the corresponding critique and interpretation from McNeill et al. This is not a MEDRS issue, rather plain old common sense. Mihaister (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

:*

Mdann if you're reframing this discussion to be around whether McNeill meets WP:MEDRS and how much weight it should be given, that's appreciated. Regarding your comment {{tq|Reading through the article, there seems to be an overall negetive tone; Will including this really violate NPOV if the source turns out to be fine?}} -- Please keep in mind that per WP:NPOV an article is required to reflect the emphasis found in the reliable sourcing. If the prevailing viewpoint found in the reliable sourcing regarding a topic is generally negative, the article must reflect that, and not undermine the sourcing or have a problem with WP:GEVAL.

Before we move forward {{u|Mdann52}} would you please review the discussion we already had regarding that topic here and evaluate the result? Thanks... Zad68 22:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the background reading there; That kinda of makes consensus clear, and once again, the NPOV vs neutral issue has come up. I've also done my own background reading, and consensus not to include seems to be fairly clear to me. Just beacause a source meets MEDRS (let's say) doesn't mean it should be included. Therefore, I thinks as the same arguements are being discussed here as in the previous discussions, and as my reading of consensus from the discussion is not to include it (both by numbers and arguements), I think that unless significant new arguement comes to light, then the current form should be retained. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Can you please point to me the agreement of the editors of the article not to include it. I see that some have agreed to not include it, and perhaps a few more disagree with its inclusion, but consensus inst a vote WP:CON. The only reason it isnt in the article is because of reverts and the desire to stay out of edit wars. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::{{u|AlbinoFerret}}, as an outside editor and DRN volunteer, Mdann evaluated the previous discussion and closed it as "no consensus to include". If you really believe that the only reason McNeill isn't in the article right now is "because of reverts" (and by that you appear to mean you still believe positive consensus exists to include it but nobody's reverted it back in yet), that's a problem. But, do what you will at this point. Zad68 13:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::Enough editors believe that it should be included that the opinion to exclude is not broad and the reasons for exclusion seem to be shifted each time the goalposts are reached. If anything, that Grana relies on the work of the authors of McNeil to come to conclusions should give it enough weight for McNeil to be included as rebuttal to how their work was used. Only one editor at the time that reasoning was made disagreed with it, and only adding it should be the final published version. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::You must be talking about {{u|Alexbrn}}, who commented already in this DRN discussion about exactly this item you're describing? If you're talking about individual editors and action, it'd be helpful if you'd specify. The actual editing history does not agree with your assessment. Again, at this point, do what you will. Zad68 13:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

::::{{replyto|Mdann52}} Thank you again for taking a look at this discussion and providing your input. I would like to point out that, whereas the previous discussion did not appear to converge on a "consensus to include" the McNeill source, there was substantive and well-argued dissenting opinion challenging the view that statements by WHO carry so much weight that they are de facto beyond contest. As I wrote in that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_10#Consensus_for_adding_this older discussion] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_cigarette&diff=628892949&oldid=628890298], I think the weight of McNeill cannot be evaluated separately as a one-to-one standoff against WHO, but, rather, has to be considered in the context of all the existing evidence in the field as informed by other MEDRS publications, some of which contain language that is very similar to McNeill. For example,

::::* [http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18/abstract this study] states "The existing literature tends to overestimate the exposures and exaggerate their implications. This is partially due to rhetoric [...] There is also clear bias in previous reports in favor of isolated instances of highest level of chemicals detected"

::::* [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12659/pdf and this study] states "EC [e-cigarette] reduces cigarette use by facilitating smoking reduction and cessation on individual level"

::::both of which add to the weight of the arguments made by McNeill. I don't think that it is good encyclopedic practice to uncritically default to the opinion of recognized organizations and overlook a growing body of evidence that is contrary to that opinion. Editors cannot summarize such evidence in the article, as it would constitute WP:SYN, however I don't think the weight of this evidence can be summarily dismissed when considering whether McNeill is WP:DUE. We're not talking fringe views here, but rather views held by a significant proportion of the reliable sources in scientific literature. Mihaister (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

{{od}} {{ping|Zad68}} any views on this point? --Mdann52talk to me! 14:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{u|Mdann52}}, sure. As discussed above, the scope of this DRN discussion is around whether McNeill meets WP:MEDRS and how much weight it should be given. Per your review of the previous discussion there was no consensus to include McNeill. {{u|Mihaister}} agreed with you that there was no consensus to include McNeill. I agree as well. I believe that this concludes this DRN discussion as resolved.

Discussion regarding the use of other sources like those from the WHO, Burstyn and Hajek have happened elsewhere, and in fact all three of those sources--the WHO, Burstyn, and Hajek--are used in the article already, but their use wasn't the subject of this DRN discussion. Zad68 15:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|RightCowLeftCoast|19:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Premature. Insufficient talk page discussion. Disputes must have had extensive talk page discussion before seeking moderated content dispute resolution. I recognize that it's that very lack of discussion that's the primary problem here, but continuing to edit in the face of talk page objections is a conduct matter, not a content matter, and we don't handle conduct matters here at DRN. Let me note in passing, however, that I fully agree with 115ash's opponents that, since the article was in a stable state (at least in this regard) for several months, that changes must gain a consensus if other editors object to them, as they have done. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Asian American}}

Users involved

• {{User|RightCowLeftCoast}}
• {{User| 115ash}}
• {{User| Wtmitchell}}
• {{User| Palmeira}}
• {{User| TheRedPenOfDoom}}
• {{User| Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf}}

Dispute overview

An editor has since October 2014, attempted to make bold changes to the lead section and infobox of the article Asian Americans, without first achieving consensus/support for these changes. This has lead to an editing conflict involving multiple editors, including one potential single purpose editor. A consensus for the current state of the lead section and infobox was created with a large number of participants in 2012.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have repeatedly asked the editor in question to stop repeatedly re-adding the bold changes to the sections in question, as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A115ash&diff=632381167&oldid=632351093 cataloged] by Wtmitchell on 115ash's talk page, and have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_American&diff=632412870&oldid=632411890 requested other previously involved editors] to comment and edit the article, asking them in an appropriate manner per WP:CANVASS.

How do you think we can help?

Have 115ash stop editing the lead and infobox sections of the article, and reach a consensus for changes to the article, if any, prior to making additional edits.

I'll keep it brief by not recapping my involvement here step by step. See this and this for details.

• On 4 Nov, User RightCowlLeftCoast contaccted me here requesting assistance regarding what he described as "a potentially disruptive editor at the article Asian American". I reviewed edit histories and concluded that this appeared to be tendentious editing by user 115ash. As an admin, I could have blocked user 115ash to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" (see WP:BLOCKDETERRENT), but I decided not to do that because user 115ash had a substantial edit count (accumulated quickly in a short editing history), no prior blocks, and no obvious indication of past disruptive editing. Instead, I summarized the situation here in a section which had earlier been added to the talk page of user 115ash by user RightCowLeftCoast, reiterated an earlier request there by user RightCowLeftCoast that user 115ash build a consensus for his desired changes by discussion on the article talk pagee, and asked both editors involved to review Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Characteristics of problem editors.
• On 5 Nov, User RightCowlLeftCoast contacted me here, saying essentially that user 115ash had continued his disruptive behavior and asking me to re-involve myself. I still was still not moved to block user 115ash and, as dispute resolution counseling is not something I do well, I suggested that user RightCowlLeftCoast seek assistance elsewhere. Later, I saw that user TheRedPenOfDoom had added his voice to mine and others in the talk page of user 115ash urging him to discuss his desired changes on the article talk page, along with a good brief explanation of why. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

A look at the page's history supports my only involvement: "Bingo!" in response to a suggestion Wikipedia:Tendentious editing—Characteristics of problem editors should be considered while gazing in a mirror. There seems some ethnic driven "passion/special pleading" going on there that is gone into disruption. The argument that previous consensus distributed featured photos by percent ethnicity in the U.S. Census report seems a sound basis to have some factual hook other than a simple "pack it with my favorites" basis. Perhaps a lock on the page at the consensus stage until this can be resolved. Other than that I am not an expert on the subject, have no particular interest in the page—certainly nearly none in Wiki disputes—and can only say that when "encyclopedia" gets away from fairly solid fact into opinion and culture this is going to happen. Palmeira (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

A couple of years ago a good number of editors participated in an extensive process to come up with a consensus on the images in the info box. A prime basis for the process was to apply NPOV/UNDUE by having the info box content reflect the subject of the article - Asian Americans - by representing the major ethnicities that make up the Asian American population as per demographic figures.

Recently 115ash came in and made changes to the photos (which is fine, BOLD and everything and they likely didnt know about the process that had been used to reach consensus.) However, even when reverted multiple times by multiple editors and told about the consensus that had been established, 115ash continued to insert their selection of images. Their participation on the talk page after being reverted and notified about the existing consensus, has been minimal 1 line sentences and then a revert to their preferred version without any indication at all that a new consensus for their version has come into place. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Asian American} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

:I have, I can, here are the diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_American&diff=prev&oldid=632730112 talk page], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:115ash&diff=prev&oldid=632730811 115ash], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtmitchell&diff=632730953&oldid=632619539 Wtmitchell], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Palmeira&diff=632731044&oldid=632582198 Palmeira], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom&diff=632731101&oldid=632683981 TheRedPenOfDoom], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf&diff=632731149&oldid=632519438 Tlqkfshadk12345anjtlqkf].--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

::Thank you, but unless someone can point me to a place that 115ash has discussed this more than his three edits on the article talk page so far, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to close this request for lack of "extensive" discussion about the issue in dispute, which is required as a prerequisite to filing a case here (and also at 3O and MEDCOM). I recognize that it's that very lack of discussion that's the primary problem here, but continuing to edit in the face of talk page objections is a conduct matter, not a content matter, and we don't handle conduct matters here at DRN. I fully agree with the idea that, since the article was in a stable state (at least in this regard) for several months, that changes must gain a consensus if other editors object to them, as they have. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|67.188.230.128|21:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Primary disputant has declined to participate, futile. If dispute resolution is still desired, you might consider an request for comments. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Khorasan (Islamist_group)#Sourced_information_being_removed_from_article}}

Users involved

• {{User|LightandDark2000}}
• {{User| David O. Johnson}}

Dispute overview

A couple of users have been repeatedly removing reliably sourced content from the article, apparently for ideological reasons (they disagree with the source). The disputed content concerns criticisms against the use of the term "Khorasan Group" in media. The mentioned users wish to remove these criticisms from the article. I believe these criticisms represent a significant minority viewpoint and should be included.

The disputed content approximately corresponds to {{Diff|Khorasan (Islamist group)|632185595|632108836|this diff}}.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This material (among other things) was initially discussed here, where discussion concluded around October 10th. At that point the disputed content was present in the article. The content was removed on October 20th as part of a series of changes, primarily {{Diff|Khorasan (Islamist group)|diff=prev|oldid=630322986}}, {{Diff|Khorasan (Islamist group)|diff=prev|oldid=630337046}}, and {{Diff|Khorasan (Islamist group)|diff=prev|oldid=630337626}}. In response, I created a new talk page section here on October 24.

How do you think we can help?

This has become a sort of slow-moving edit war. Please advise on the best course of action to move forward with this dispute.

The person who opened the dispute resolution insists on adding information that is contradicted by other sources. Specifically, he continues to use this source [https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/28/u-s-officials-invented-terror-group-justify-bombing-syria/], that questions whether the group as "even exists in any meaningful or identifiable manner." However, this is contradicted by a fighter from the Al Nusra Front [http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/26/uk-syria-crisis-nusra-insight-idUKKCN0HL11520140926]. Furthermore, info in the same section of the article contradicts the disputed claim by stating that the group is "a network-within-the-network, assigned to deal with specific tasks" [http://carnegieendowment.org/syriaincrisis/?fa=56707]. To say that the group never existed is clearly untrue. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer's note: I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN (and the current Coordinator), but I'm not either "taking" this filing or opening it for discussion at this time. Some clarification is needed, however: I'm not sure if the dispute here is over (a) the repeated removal of sourced material, which is a conduct issue not within the purview of this noticeboard, or (b) particular material which has been removed and which is in dispute, which is a content issue and acceptable here. Would the filing editor please clarify that issue in the "Dispute Overview" section above, and if it is (b) also clarify (1) whether the material being discussed in the "Sourced information being removed from article" section is or is not the same material being discussed in the "questions about right hand talk" section and (2) provide diffs to whatever particular material is in dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

:{{reply to|TransporterMan}} The purpose of this posting is to get assistance resolving the content dispute itself, not any issues of editorial conduct. I have added a diff of the core disputed content, as well as a more detailed description of the dispute. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

::We're waiting to see if LightandDark2000 is going to participate. Since he was a primary participant in the discussion, there's no point in going forward if he chooses not to do so. (As is his prerogative; participation in dispute resolution is never mandatory.) If he doesn't join in a couple of days, this listing will probably be closed as futile. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

:::It seems like he/she is unwilling to participate based on {{diff|User_talk:LightandDark2000|diff=next|oldid=632333483|label=this edit}} on his/her talk page (removing the DRN notification with the edit summary "This is pointless. It really isn't going to get anywhere."). What is the next step to resolve the dispute in this case? 67.188.230.128 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Lampuser|10:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=At root, this appears to be a conduct dispute. There's a lot of content issues mixed in with it, but with one editor alleging edit warring and the other alleging SPA and COI issues, the conduct needs to be worked through before we can do anything here. Consider RFC/U or ANI for the conduct. If you get that cleared up and come back to dispute resolution, here or elsewhere, the requesting editor should be prepared to address specific problems, not just a generalized complaint about "most of the sources." — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Eric Diesel#Wikipedia:Third_opinion}}

Users involved

• {{User|Lampuser}}
• {{User| FloraWilde}}

Dispute overview

Most of the sources in the Eric Diesel article appear to be unreliable. Any attempts to edit the article are undone user FloraWilde/50.247.76.51, who also deletes sourced additions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I got a third opinion, who agreed with me. I tried to put this on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but it was not answered and eventually disappeared.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to clean up this article but I can't without getting in an edit war and I don't know what to do.

NUTSHELL SUMMARY

Lampuser is a SPA account canvassing here again pushing a POV for support of his wikilawyering that "According to Wikipedia's rules, almost everything in the Article should immediately be removed".[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Diesel#Sources]to delete I added the source Lampuser asked for.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Diesel&diff=624026866&oldid=624022987] Lampuser objects to all RS sources whose content he does not like or cannot access because it is pay-to-view or hard copy publiication, including USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro, etc. Lampuser keeps deleting these with an edit summary that they were "unverifiable".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Diesel&diff=623862425&oldid=612881877]. When I restored them, Lampuser canvassed here, complaining I am undoing his edits. Lampuser is an admitted WP:COI and WP:SPA editor trying to delete all sources from the article except for two that he POV cherry-picks from. Lampuser writes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_Diesel&diff=prev&oldid=623861785 "The only real sources on this page seem to be the SFGate and SF Weekly articles."]. Lampuser then concocted a preposterous wikilawyer argument that "According to Wikipedia's rules, almost everything in the Article should immediately be removed".[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Diesel#Sources] He used this to delete these sources again.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Diesel&diff=623941290&oldid=623924772] This went on and on. It turned out (today) that Lampuser never even bothered to read the article body, or look at the sources in it. The only "dispute" is about Lampuser's SPA and COI behavior. The way to deal with the behavior is that this DRN should be ignored, like editors did with the previous ones Lampuser brought up. Responding will only encourage more disruptive conduct by SPA COI Lampuser, by giving him attention. FloraWilde (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

End NUTSHELL SUMMARY

SUMMARY OF "DISPUTE" (with diffs) -

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Diesel&diff=624020610&oldid=624017252 This] was my only addition of content to the article, and I reverted it, trying to accommodate Lampuser with WP:AGF. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Diesel&diff=632683259&oldid=606198055 All of the rest of my edits on the article] were moving references around in AGF deference to Lampuser's talk page complaints, or removing references because of Lampuser's objections.

On the talk page and in edit summaries, editor Lampuser admits his only purpose for editing at Wikipedia is as a WP:SPA account editing because "almost everything in the Article should immediately be removed", arguing that USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro are "not verifiable" (edit summary) and not "real" (talk page) RS sources, but instead have content that was "fabricated" by the news reporters, and that "the only real sources on this page seem to be the SFGate and SF Weekly articles".

• 1. Lampuser wrote, "The only real sources on this page seem to be the SFGate and SF Weekly articles."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_Diesel&diff=prev&oldid=623861785]

• 2. Lampuser objects to the other RS sources whose content he does not like, including USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro, etc., deleting them by calling them "unverifiable" in edit summaries[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Diesel&diff=623862425&oldid=612881877].

• 3. Writing as an IP, then (wp:sp) commenting as a named editor agreeing with himself as an IP, Lampuser wrote that the content of USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro, etc., is a "fabrication", as the justification for repeatedly deleting them - "Everything about Eric Diesel here is completely fabricated", citing the same two sources as the only "real" sources.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_Diesel&diff=prev&oldid=606147431]

• 4. Having failed to delete USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro, etc. on grounds they are not RS or V, when they clearly are, Lampuser then tried to delete these sources with a preposterous (and disruoptive) wp:wikilawyering arguent. He argued that "by the rules", if a single editor (himself) objects to any source such as USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro, etc., they thereby become "contentious", and should therefore be "immediately" deleted, - "According to Wikipedia's rules, almost everything in the Article should immediately be removed".[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Diesel#Sources] This is wp:wikilawyering at its very worst.

• 5. Using this wikilawyering argument, he deleted the same sources again, this time with no edit summary at all, and without responding to the talk page discussion that his wikilawyering argument to delete the entire article was nonsense and disruptive.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Diesel&diff=623941290&oldid=623924772].

• 6. Lampuser then tried another angle to delete these sources, by objecting to the entire Wikipedia policy of having inline sources at the end of sentences, in this case the lead first sentence, calling it confusing "clustering".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEric_Diesel&diff=632683694&oldid=628999314] These "clustered" references at the and of the lead first sentence, are the same sources that Lampuser tried to delete as just cited with the above diffs.

If this is not enough to establish what is going on here, I supply more details below this nutshell.

I have bent over backwards trying to WP:AGF accommodate Lampuser (see details below), spending volumes of time responding to inane talk page discussions, and responding to Lam;puser's disruptive wikilawyering.

The above diffs, plus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lampuser this contribution history], clearly establish that Lampuser is a disruptive WP:SPA and WP:COI editor with a POV that is inappropriate at Wikipedia.

I hope other editors will agree. FloraWilde (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

END of SUMMARY FloraWilde (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Additional comment on the new talk page "source question" by Lampuser - Lampuser’s most recent talk page “question” indicates he has not yet even bothered to read the content of article body, or looked at what sources are already in the article body.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Diesel#Source_clustering] This is despite his filling an entire talk page with “objections”. This DRN should be ignored - doing otherwise will only encourage more of the same disruptive wasting of the time of editors like me, who naively continue to AGF and respond. Given that Lampuser has edited with two user accounts and multiple wildly varying IPs, a ban would be useless. Ignoring him is the best recourse. If the above is not dispositive, then read on. FloraWilde (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Specific responses to Lampuser's statements above:

Lampuser supplied no diffs. I will supply the relevant diffs then reply in detail. This expands on the nutshell description above.

• Re "Most of the sources in the Eric Diesel article appear to be unreliable" -

::Lampuser states, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_Diesel&diff=prev&oldid=623861785 "The only real sources on this page seem to be the SFGate and SF Weekly articles."] Editing as an IP, Lampuser falsely states [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_Diesel&diff=prev&oldid=606147431 "everything about Eric Diesel here is completely fabricated"], citing the same two sources as the only "real" sources.

::Ignoring the discussion on the talk page, Lampuser then deleted all other sources, starting with USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, Santa Cruz Metro, etc. Lampuser [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Diesel&diff=623862425&oldid=612881877 deleted all of these sources] (and deleted the entire lead first paragraph they supported, replacing the content with WP:NPOV violating, WP:BLP violating, WP:SPA, WP:COI violating, WP:UNDUE content, to push a strange pov entirely inconsistent with the article body).

::USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, etc., are "real", are not "fabircations", and Lampuser knows this. Lampuser is disruptively wasting the time of editors.

::When the RS sources and content was restored, Lampuser [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Diesel&diff=623941290&oldid=623924772 deleted these sources and the content again], this time without any edit summary, again ignoring discussions at talk. Yet Lampuser starts this DRN section saying the opposite - "Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already". Lampuser then started a disruptive edit war repeatedly deleting these sources.

• Re: "I would like to clean up this article but I can't without getting in an edit war".

::What Lampuser means by "clean up" is to delete all of the RS sources, except for the two he wants to cherry-pick from to push a misleading POV that is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the article. As cited, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Diesel&diff=623862425&oldid=612881877 this "cleaning up"], then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Diesel&diff=623941290&oldid=623924772 this "clening up"], were followed by an edit war with the same kinds of "clean ups".

::Deleting reliable sources and the content they support is not "cleaning up" the article. It is disruptive editing. It has no place at Wikipedia.

• Re "Any attempts to edit the article are undone user FloraWilde/50.247.76.51, who also deletes sourced additions"

::This is false. Lampuser knows it is false. I added (not deleted) the only source Lampuser claimed was "real".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Diesel&diff=624026866&oldid=624022987] Lampuser knows what he said is false , because we explicitly discussed it at the talk page, with my edit summary comment being "source added".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEric_Diesel&diff=624027124&oldid=624025722] Knowingly making false statements at a DNR is a disruptive waste of the time of the editors responding to it.

::If what Lampuser means by "attempt to edit the article" means his deletions of RS and long standing, then Lampuser's "attempts to edit" are in reality attempts to disrupt wikipedia, by removing RS and content the RS supports.

• Re "third opinion agreed with me".

::This is false. Using an IP so I would not know about a DRN discussion (a wp:sp violation), and without notifying me, Lampuser got a third The third opinion on a section (having nothing to do with Lampuser's current complaints) that I was editing, that was in construction with a construction hat on the section. Without my knowing of or participating in the DRN discussion, the third opinion (correctly) found that I had made edits in that section without putting inline citations (because it was in construction). In exasperation, I undid my edits and reverted the entire section back to the a very old stable version by an admin (which also did not have inline citations), then I added inline citations to that older version. This was fully discussed at talk. Lampuser then did a complete reversal, and started new talk page section making the opposite complaint to his complaint about the lack of inline citations in that section. Lampuser went from complaining about the lack of inline citations in the section under construction, to complaining that there were inline citations at the end of the lead first sentence (citations for the same sources Lampuser previously tried to delete, as just discussed above - USA Today, San Jose Mercury, etc. Lampuser then wrote,“The clustering of sources in this article makes it impossible to verify which information is coming from which source… I'm talking about this type of thing – ‘Eric John Diesel (b. 12-19-1957) is an American mathematician, real estate developer, producer, and social activist.’[1][2][3][4][5][6]" That is not how sourcing is supposed to work. It's (probably deliberately) confusing to the point of being useless.”[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Diesel#Source_clustering] Lampuser then adds to on this page that “Most of the sources in the Eric Diesel article appear to be unreliable”. Lampuser then comes here to this DNR, again failing to notify me of the discussion until being told to do so by the volunteer, and ambiguously mislead that a third opinion "agreed with him" as to the issues of this new DRN, to delete the RS citations at the end of the lead first sentence, when in fact the "agreement" was the opposite. This intentional abuse of the DRN process with ambiguities is disruptive WP:Wikilawyering at its worst, and the wp:spa and wp:coi Lampuser should not be encouraged by being given still more attention.

• There are many more examples of Lampuser making such disruptive edits, but I am already far over the 2000 character limit for my response. The diffs above should be more than adequate for other editors to see what is really going on here - Lampuser is a very disruptive WP:COI and WP:SPA account who wastes the time of other editors by frivolously deleting content and RS sources, then complains that when an editor restores the sources and content, it is “edit warring”. Lampuser overtly stated his purpose in editing is to disruptively edit and reduce the article to two sources and two sentences. Lampuser is not editing to improve wikipedia, but is a wp:spa editor with a wp:coi who is pushing blp violating pov deletions of content to harm wikipedia. I hope other editors will agree. FloraWilde (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Note: Lampuser also made repeated WP:Privacy violations, including on this page. I deleted them. The first time Lampuser made wp:privacy violations, I made the error of responding, by citing proof that his allegations were false, thereby revealing the location of myself and another living person. Each time Lampuser's wp:privacy violations were deleted, he complained about the deletion, trying to provoke another response. Lampuser made the same wp:privacy violations on this page, trying to trigger a response like as he got from the other pages. As wp:privacy says, these WP:Privacy violations should not be responded to in any way, and lampuser should be permanently banned. The first time, I had not carefully read that WP:OUT says, "Do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason." I made the mistake of disproving the incorrect outing attempt by disproving it, citing information about locations of living persons that was available on the web, exactly what wp:out says not to do. This revealed locations of me and another living person to Lampuser. But WP:OUT does not say how to report privacy violations, who to report them to, only that they should not be responded to. Lampuser should have been banned after the first and second such wp:privacy violation. Instead, Lampuser got away with private information on locations of two living persons because I disproved his assertion on identity. Lampuser then tried the same thing again on this DRN page. Please do not respond, even if he again complains that his violations were deleted. Lampuser should have been banned after his first wp:privacy violation, instead of being allowed to repeat the same violations on other pages, which allowed him to continue disruptively wasting time of editors with inane canvassing like this section he created. FloraWilde (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Eric Diesel} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK)

:I've made an appeal on the DRN talk page for a volunteer. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

::{{ping| FloraWilde}} I would advise you cut down your statement; This will likely attract volunteer attention quicker. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

:::This appears to be a conduct dispute to me. However, I will leave this open for another volunteer to review. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Ibolachi|21:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=This dispute is here because administrator Tom Morris closed the discussion in question. While there was certainly a content dispute in that discussion before it was closed, this discussion is really about Morris' conduct. DRN does not handle conduct disputes. I would suggest that Ibolachi first discuss this with Morris on Morris' talk page and if no satisfactory result can be had, then take it to Administrator's noticeboard (by this suggestion I do not mean to imply that I believe that either Morris or Ibolachi are in the right; I am only providing procedural advice). Even if this were a content dispute, with only one edit by Morris it would fail DRN's requirement that there be extensive talk page discussion before coming to DRN. Either way, it's an invalid request here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Ebola virus disease}}

Users involved

• {{User|Ibolachi}}
• {{User| Tom Morris}}

Dispute overview

I made the following comment about the EVD article citing as a source the Chief Medical Director of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital.

"The EVD article currently says: “No specific treatment is currently approved. However, survival is improved by early supportive care with rehydration and symptomatic treatment”. In the Nigerian outbreak what I noticed was that survival was 100% for the last group of 10 patients who used oral rehydration. Surely it is too early to have peer-reviewed articles. But there are press accounts: [62] Quote: “So, once there is a rise in temperature, we had an evacuation team, properly kitted at the centre, who would now go and evacuate the contacts developing the symptoms and all the contacts that developed symptoms that we got on time, all of them survived.” My understanding of this is that the Chief Medical Director of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital is saying that early stage EVD has a specific treatment that is 100% successful. Since no drugs or vaccines were used, the question is: what cured 100% of the patients? How can an article on EVD not say that if a person gets early treatment they have an almost 100% chance of survival? The EIS hypothesis is not a fringe theory it is the only theory that in my opinion correctly addresses cause and effect. EIS is not proven but it should inform the EVD article where it is confirmed by a reputable source in this case CMD LUTH."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The article was never edited. The discussion was blocked on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Allow discussion the most important topic in Africa at the current time. Allow African sources to be used without discrimination.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{drn filing editor|Mcgyver2k|00:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=The dispute has been resolved at the article talk page. --Biblioworm 22:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Myles Munroe}}

Users involved

• {{User|Mcgyver2k}}
• {{User| Winkelvi}}

Dispute overview

The original article which was very much a puff piece has been severely edited by many users today based on the death of the person and I noticed that there was an uncited reference to him receiving the Order of the British Empire. I did research and found that he was not among the list of those who received it. I edited it out after posting in the Talk section of the page. Another user kept replacing it and using news articles to prove that he had received it.

The bottom line is that it seems clear that he never received it and I don't believe the "Bahamian Silver Jubilee" award even exists either.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried explaining my rationale and provided a link to the page with all the winners listed (Myles Munroe precariously absent from said list).

How do you think we can help?

I think you could tell Winkelvi to cease and desist posting without a truly valid reference.

Was not notified of this noticeboard discussion by Mcgyver2k. This user has been edit warring at the article he listed above. Further, the user's "research" leads only to an online newspaper. Interestingly and in complete contradiction to his own comments, the user is dismissing online media as being adequate to cite in support of the article including that which he claims is bogus but is now claiming online media is correct when it omits the proof being sought. The references I have cited are reputable. I agree that it would be a perfect scenario to have something more solid reference-wise, but for now, the content fits "verifiability over truth" in meeting the threshold for inclusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, {{U|Mcgyver2k}} and {{U|Winkelvi}}. I'm Biblioworm, a volunteer here at the DRN. I'll be willing to help you two resolve this dispute.

In summary, you seem to be disagreeing on whether or not the statement in question ("In 1998, Munroe was the youngest recipient of the Queen's Birthday Honors of the Order of the British Empire (OBE)") is backed up by reliable sources. Mcgyver's view is that it is not properly verifiable, as he has searched through lists of recipients and has failed to find Munroe's name. Winkelvi's view is that the statement is verifiable, as there is a mention of Munroe receiving the award in an Independent.co.uk article.

For what it's worth, I've run my own Google search on the matter. (URL is [https://www.google.com/search?q=Myles+Munroe+Queen+Birthday+Honors+List here].) I found that a USA Today article also mentions that Munroe received the award (there are some other sites, but they are mostly blogs). You two might be interested in examining the results in more detail.

Thanks, --Biblioworm 03:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:Not just the UK publication, but it's mentioned in several I was able to find within just a minute or two. I didn't think it would be necessary to cite all of the reliable sources, so I included two. The issue I have with Mcgyver2's demand that the OBE content be removed is that because a source he found doesn't mention Munroe's name, that's proof that he didn't receive the award. Which, on its face is preposterous given the threshold of inclusion mentions nothing about "dis-inclusion" in sources. Plenty of reliable sources say he did receive the award -- including a source from the UK, the country of origin for the award. If there was something out there that is reliable and citable stating Munroe's claims of receiving the award were bogus, I would be fine with what Mcgyver's proposing. But, there isn't, and there are more reliable references stating he did receive the award than those stating he didn't (there are none saying that, actually), therefore the content is verifiable and meets the threshold of inclusion satisfactory to Wikipedia policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::It is true that there are no "dis-inclusion" guidelines. I would like to hear what Mcgyver has to say concerning the Independent.co.uk and the USA Today articles. In my opinion, both websites be trusted to publish accurate material. However, I am curious as to why Munroe is not listed on any lists if he has indeed received the award. --Biblioworm 03:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:::To be accurate, he's not listed on any lists that we have access to. Just because it's not on the internet it's not real? Of course, we know that's not true. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::::The funniest part is that the same source that Winkelvi uses to prove his/her point (http://www.Independent.co.uk) is the one that I found that lists all the recipients. Seems more likely that the reporters at that news outlet didn't do their homework before jumping on the bandwagon than the alternative. The bottom line is that I could find a dozen websites that say "so and so did such and such" but if I find a definitive list of all the people that ever did "such and such" and your person is not on it, guess what? Yep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs) 04:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

{{od}}Ping: Biblioworm: This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myles_Munroe&diff=prev&oldid=633338006] just happened. It would seem Mcgyver has a lack of understanding regarding the dispute resolution process as well as the principle that there is no deadline in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::::You were the first one to alter (vandalize) my edit so, to be fair, until the resolution between you and I is complete it should remain as modified by the first of us. True?voiceofreason 05:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs)

:::::Bullshit. No one vandalized you edits (obviously, vandalizing is another concept in Wikipedia you need to learn the actual meaning of). When content issues are in discussion, the content stays as is until discussion is closed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::Please stay civil @{{U|Winkelvi}}. We are attempting to resolve this dispute peacefully, without use of terms like "bullshit". @{{U|Mcgyver2k}}: Since the statement in question is backed up by a few reliable sources, would you be willing to compromise and let it stay until the discussion is over? Edit warring is of no benefit to dispute resolution, and will most likely result in a block if you continue (we don't want that to happen). --Biblioworm 19:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::While I sincerely appreciate you volunteering to help out in this case, I have to point out that "bullshit" isn't uncivil, it's calling a spade a spade - or in this case it's calling a lie a lie. Cursing in Wikipedia isn't considered uncivil by even the most seasoned of admins, and frankly, Wikipedia policy doesn't say it's not allowed, either (depending on how it's done, of course). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::::It is certainly not disallowed, but I don't think it really helps too much when trying to resolve disputes... --Biblioworm 19:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::When an editor is lying and behaving in a needlessly aggressive manner along with edit warring because he chooses to invoke WP:IDHT in the midst of a discussion HE asked for... I find the wording I chose to be quite called for and appropriate, to be honest. Nonetheless, another editor at the article's talk page and I have discovered the same source that should include the article subject on it if he had actually been awarded the OBE. The list does not show his name. The list I'm referring to is not from the online newspaper the edit-warring user kept referring back to, but the official government list of award and honors recipients. My thanks to Bob Caldwell CSL for remaining civil, calm, and diligent in looking for the right information to help settle this dispute. My thanks also to you, Biblioworm, for volunteering to help out and taking the time to do so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Coordinator's notes: There are at least a couple of other participants in the discussion over at the article talk page who probably ought to be listed here and provided sections to make opening statements. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

: I also appreciate all the helps from the moderators/volunteers and other level headed editors. I am hardly "aggressive" and have simply been adamant about only wanting proven facts on Wikipedia. I didn't "start" the editwarring with WV but it now seems resolved and as it turns out I was correct in my initial statements/conclusions. Have a great day all and remember to thank a Veteran.voiceofreason 21:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

{{ping|Winkelvi|Mcgyver2k}} So, then, have both of you agreed that the information will stay out of the article? If so, I'll close this. --Biblioworm 21:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:Mcgyver2k disappeared after making an inappropriate comment at the 3RR report that was filed on him. I have no idea if he's in agreement with the conversation here or at the article talk page. Since he started this "discussion", it probably shouldn't be closed out until he at least comments on it once more. Then again, if he doesn't return for a few days, I'd say it's safe to close out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::I "disappeared"? That's amazing, I didn't even know I had that power. I also have no idea what a "3RR" is. Yes, Biblioworm, you can close this one out. Thank you.voiceofreason 22:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|196.36.203.161|06:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Premature. All moderated dispute resolution forums at Wikipedia require extensive talk page discussion before seeking help. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Medupi Power Station}}

Users involved

• {{User|Edward321}}

Dispute overview

Hi

Edward321 is constantly removing paragraphs from the Medupi Power Station Page, I have explained to him that from a South African readers perspective that the two paragraphs inserted namely construction contracts and technology is important to us as this project is of particular economic and political importance due to their scale. I have tried to engage him on his talk page and undo the removal, but the next day he removes them again with no explanation. Can you assist?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have back off on several occasions, and sent messages to him asking him to explain but there has been none forthcoming.

How do you think we can help?

Im not sure, If someone can tell me what Im doing wrong or message Edward321 and talk to him from your side?

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Nononsenseplease|06:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Third Opinion request pending. DRN does not accept cases where other dispute resolution processes are pending. Though I'm going to close this request, I am going to say a few words over at the article talk page as well. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:James S.C._Chao}}

Users involved

• {{User|Nononsenseplease}}
• {{User| Byates5637}}
• {{User| Curtster3}} (initially)

Dispute overview

Hi. There's an ongoing problem with Byates5637 regarding the reiterated deletion of reliably-sourced news ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_S.C._Chao&diff=prev&oldid=632877563]) from the James S.C. Chao article.

The entry being deleted has to do with news reported a few days ago by The Nation that one of the cargo ships operated by Chao's privately-held shipping firm has been detained in Colombia. This verified incident, however, is both notable and relevant. Notable because they involve 40 kilos of cocaine (worth $7 million wholesale) and the impoundment of a Panamax-size cargo ship, as well as an ongoing investigation by the Colombian Navy; and relevant because Chao's shipping firm, Foremost Maritime Corp., was founded by the subject of the article and is still privately held by him and his family.

Byates has switched arguments numerous times during our Talk Page exchanges, but it's telling that he began by asserting that this shouldn't be mentioned because it's been "covered in a small handful of far left opinion sites which border on being tabloids." I doubt most editors consider The Nation (the most detailed source), El Tiempo (the largest paper in Colombia, and hardly "left-wing"), the Baltimore Sun, and the Louisville Courier fringe sites or tabloids.

I should add that I wasn't the only editor to add news of this to the article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_S.C._Chao&diff=prev&oldid=631845710]). I find his description of these news as something from the "far left" good reason to believe Byates would like to revert addition of these news for reasons of personal/political preference.

Numerous attempts to resolve the dispute in the Talk Page have failed.

Thank you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I mentioned it at the ANI page, and was instructed to transfer the request here.

How do you think we can help?

I'm not sure- but Byates' dismissal of the sources as "far left sites" (when they're clearly not) says a lot about his/her motives for trying to keep any mention of this incident out.

These news are notable in the subject's career in shipping, made all the more relevant because the shipping firm in question in privately owned by him. It's furthermore reliably-sourced, written in a neutral tone, and belongs in the Career section.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|VoiceOfreason|19:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Closed as conduct complaint. DRN does not handle conduct disputes, per instructions at the top of this page. Conduct disputes should be addressed at RFC/U or ANI. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|User talk:VoiceOfreason}}

Users involved

• {{User|VoiceOfreason}}
• {{User| Winkelvi}}

Dispute overview

User "Winkelvi" (WV) is Wikihounding (harrassing) me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Told them to stop.

How do you think we can help?

Notify this editor to quit cyber stalking me.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Takinzinnia|01:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard and all other moderated content dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia. I'd ordinarily suggest that a person in your position follow the recommendations I make here, but I'm not sure that they will work against a dynamic-IP editor who may not even see your requests because he has a different talk page every time his IP address changes. You might ask for indefinite page semi-protection, or for an IP-rangeblock through ANI but I wouldn't hold out high hopes for you getting either one. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:List of Wii U software#Naruto Shippuden: Clash of Ninja Project}}

Users involved

• {{User|Takinzinnia}}
• {{User| 201.95.199.29}}

Dispute overview

Various IP users add a game that I believe does not exist to the list. I believe the cited source is unreliable, and have been unable to find a reliable replacement, so I remove the game. I have left messages on their talk pages as well, but they do not respond.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I left a message on the user's talk page, pointing to earlier discussion on the List of Wii U software's talk page. But no IP editor I contact ever responds.

How do you think we can help?

Convince the IP editor to make an account or at least find a reliable source (if that is not possible, to admit his/her mistake) or temporarily semi-protect the List of Wii U software page.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Charlottechloe|20:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Futile. Insufficient participation by other disputants to have hope of coming to consensus by all parties and other editors who have weighed in consider this a conduct, not a content, matter, which DRN does not handle. Consider request for comments if further dispute resolution is needed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Emotional Freedom_Techniques/Archives/2014/April}}

Users involved

• {{User|Charlottechloe}}
• {{User| Begoon}}
• {{User| Yobol}}
• {{User| JzG}} aka Guy

Dispute overview

The administrative editors who rule on the content of the locked EFT page have refused most of the requests I've made for changes to the EFT page since our discussions began in April. Here are specific changes I'm requesting that they've refused:

• 1) Remove the second paragraph of the Research Quality section because the author of the quote, DL McCaslin, is an unreliable source, with no qualifications to make such a statement. A double standard is clear here when the editor Guy says of McCaslin that “the journal editors' judgment trumps any of ours” yet the WP editors refuse to acknowledge such trumping re the Feinstein reviews but instead discredit him in the text.
• 2) The reference to Feinstein, which they added to the Reception section, belongs in the Research Quality section. Regardless of what the editors think of Feinstein, his 2012 research review covers 51 peer-reviewed papers, including 18 randomized controlled trials, which belies the statement "high-quality research has never confirmed that EFT is effective." Please state that the review was of 51 peer-reviewed papers, including 18 randomized controlled trials.
• 3) Correct the errors in the Reception section:

:*a) The statement “Feinstein did not disclose his conflict of interest” is incorrect. He filled out the standard APA conflict of interest declaration for the publication of the review in the APA journal.

:*b) In the last paragraph: "Feinstein dismissed higher quality studies that showed no effects of EFT, in favor of methodologically weaker studies that did show a positive effect." Incorrect--delete the sentence. There is only one negative study, Waite & Holder, and it is very weak methodologically. It fails 3 of the 7 APA "essential" criteria for a methodologically sound study. Note that this methodologically weak source is the only primary study the page editors have allowed to be included on the page.

In summary, I am trying for a logical and accurate entry on EFT.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Continued discussion from April through November 2014.

How do you think we can help?

I think when you review my arguments for my requested changes from April through November of this year, you will recognize the logic and reasonableness of my requests.

As stated, this is an attempt to relitigate material dating back 7 months, across multiple topics. I have no intention to relitigate the matter here, as it has been discussed ad nauseum on the talk page. I think we're past the point of reaching WP:STICK. Yobol (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Proponents of the entirely bogus "Emotional Freedom Technique" are the "lunatic charlatans" of whom Jimbo spoke. The way to resolve the "dispute" is for the conflicted proponents to go away. Their ideas are not accepted by the scientific community, and Wikipedia is not the place to fix that.

Proponents petitioned Jimbo as follows:

;Create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing.

Even the advocates recognise that it is Wikipedia's policies that prevent this fringe POV form being reflected in the article, and they want the policies changed to allow it. Mediation is not the forum for policy change, especially when Jimbo's response was that the policies are precisely correct.

To represent this, as Charlottechloe does, as a request for a "logical and accurate" article is, well, illogical and inaccurate. Proponents have openly admitted that such an article would require a change of policy. On that basis alone this request must be rejected.

The request is also factually incorrect. For example, Wikipedia does not say that Feinstein failed to disclose conflicts of interest, Wikipedia says: "One review criticized Feinstein's methodology, noting he ignored several research papers that did not show positive effects of EFT, and that Feinstein did not disclose his conflict of interest as an owner of a website that sells energy psychology products such as books and seminars, against the best practice of research publication" - and we cite the review. We are representing published scientific discourse, entirely accurately, and with attribution. This is a textbook perfect application of WP:V and WP:RS: we say what was said, and by whom, and leave the reader to drawn their own conclusions.

It is certainly true that "rouge admins" have refused to include content proposed by Charlottechloe. The reasons for this are given on the Talk page, and basically come down to WP:MEDRS. There are no good quality sources independent of the proponents which show EFT to be anything other than nonsense. This is hardly a surprise: it's based on tapping "acupoints" on "meridians", but research into acupuncture has already shown to a high degree of certainty that these points and meridians don't exist. The purported energy is not energy as the world of science defines it but energy™, a term whose use in the woo fraternity is entirely interchangeable with magic.

Issues affecting the filing party's edits include:

• WP:FRINGE
• WP:UNDUE
• WP:FORUMSHOP
• WP:STICK
• WP:MEDRS (lack of)
• WP:TRUTH
• WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

Having read the history as linked in Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans, and reviewed the Talk page of the article and editing history of the single-purpose account {{userlinks|Charlottechloe}}, I think you'll agree that this is not a request made in good faith. WP:FRINGE applies, and frankly the vexatious behaviour of the filing party may well invite the WP:BOOMERANG. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Emotional Freedom_Techniques} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: Only one of the editors is participating after over 48 hours after filing. @TransporterMan may ping the involved editors to see if a response is taking place. If there is no response within 24 hours from filing editor or otherwise then this matter may be assessed as stale and archived as such. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

::Felix, let me recommend that you give it another day or two beyond the 24 hours you propose: while this has been listed that long, the listing editor did not notify the other two editors until about 19 hours ago. {{Ping|JzG}} Since you feel this was not filed in good faith — an allegation about which I express no opinion — we're going to take that as an assertion that you do not intend to participate further here unless you say otherwise. Participation here is not mandatory, of course. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

::: Why would you assume that? If I don't take part it's because I am frantically busy, not because the request is in bad faith. That it is in bad faith us blindingly obvious: read Jimmy's response to the petition these cranks set up. They are here to try to use Wikipedia as propsganda and to promote their commercial interests. That is a reason for rejecting the request as inappropriate forum shopping. If you do choose to accept it you will be wasting your time: their complaints were rejected for good reason. Again, read Jimmy's petition response. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

:::: I agree. Jimmy was right the first time. Nothing has changed, and I don't think second guessing him makes any sense. If and when these pushers of fringe POV publish research showing very strong evidence of efficacy in reputable scientific publications, then we can revisit the issue, but we'd need plenty of such research, enough to get reviews so we can follow MEDRS. Until then, it's still fringy and will be described as such, because that's what RS do. Just close this spurious thing. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

::::: Exactly. No disrespect to TransporterMan, it's always right to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but in this case the evidence is pretty clear, and we have a firm steer from Jimmy that in standing up against this POV-pushing we are doing exactly the right thing. The filing party brings nothing new here, the claims have already been made and we have already patiently explained why it's not going to work and why this is not Wikipedia's problem to fix. Further process will only burn cycles for no good purpose. Fine if TransporterMan can offer a better explanation that Charlottechloe will finally accept, but long experience indicates that "no" is never acceptable to someone who wants their fringe POV to be reflected on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::As T-man has said, participation at DRN is voluntary. So opting to not participate is everyone's right. If editors do decide to participate here then name calling and attacks on the filing party are not appropriate. Please limit your comments to matters of content and save the behavioral criticisms for ANI. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::: The filing party is a WP:SPA with a long history of advocating the same fringe POV that was pressed for by those Jimmy publicly denounced as lunatic charlatans. I can pretend this is not the case if you like, but it won't help much. Years of being an admin have persuaded me that directness is usually the best approach. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|Insufficient discussion to bring this here as of now. I'm seeing one message between the users.

Discuss the issue between yourselves, then come back if that fails to merit any results. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|Otaku00|03:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Th%C3%ADch Nh%E1%BA%A5t_H%E1%BA%A1nh}}

Users involved

• {{User|otaku00}}
• {{User| Helpsome}}

Dispute overview

User Helpsome has deleted part of the entry called "Criticism" without further explanation. I have therefore flagged the whole article because neutral viewpoint is not given, and added the deleted passage in the talk-section, trying to put it back in the article. It was deleted again, the POV-flagging taken away, too.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

See Talk section.

How do you think we can help?

Please review my "Criticism"-section in the talk page and help provide suggestions on content.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|Resolved}}

{{drn filing editor|AlbinoFerret|20:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason= Closed as resolved at the request of the filing party — Keithbob • Talk • 21:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Electronic cigarette#Removal_of_bullet_points_in_a_list_and_renaming_the_section}}

Users involved

• {{User|AlbinoFerret}}
• {{User| Johnuniq}}
• {{User|Levelledout}}
• {{User|QuackGuru}}
• {{User|Zad68}}
• {{User|CheesyAppleFlake}}

Dispute overview

In an attempt to separate the subsection Power on the e-ciagette article, in an area that I was expanding I created sub-subsections [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=632763359&oldid=632763260 diff1] for organization and to help the reader more easily find information on any specific generation. The sub-subsections stayed on the article 10 days where no other significant edits were done in the Components section other than adding to the area, adding references, and citation maintenance. The sub-subsections remained for 10 days. QuackGuru then removed the sub-subsections headers [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=634051346&oldid=634046197 diff2]. I changed the long subsection name and in the next edit added bullet points because it was basically a list [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=634104561 diff3]. Those were removed by QuackGuru I did start a talk page section to discuss what happened. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Removal_of_bullet_points_in_a_list_and_renaming_the_section diff4]

A discussion started. In the end it ended in no consensus. I brought up the fact that per WP:NOCONSENSUS that the sub-sub sections should be added because the removal was the first bold edit after the creation to the stable section.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=634328859&oldid=634328001 diff5]

Additional edits happened trying to add organization to the subsection that were reverted that I also dont have room to link to here happened but others reverted them back to the original per WP:NOCONSENSUS only to have them reverted. An additional editor was against removal but is now banned.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to rework the section multiple times and ways to organize, I have expanded each generation area. I have tried to discuss this on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I hope that the involvement of an uninvolved editor can help either to come to an agreement on the organization of the subsections, preferably to have the sub-subsections replaced per WP:NOCONSENSUS. If this can not be accomplished here, I hope to be directed to another place that can help.

The three subsections were called "First Generation Devices", "Second Generation Devices" and "Third Generation Devices".

The user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:QuackGuru&action=edit&redlink=1 QuackGuru] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=634051346&oldid=634046197 orginally removed the three subsections] and consolidated them into one citing that "Three different sections are unnecessary and a bit promotional". The consolidated section eventually ended up being called "Progression". I thought that this made things worse as "Progression" is an unknown confusing word whereas "First Generation", etc is the correct term used by reliable sources such as [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311887/Ecigarettes_report.pdf Public Health England]. I also entirely rejected the fact that a statement of fact used solely to distinguish categories by reliable sources could be "promotional". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:QuackGuru&action=edit&redlink=1 QuackGuru] then explained [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=634324418&oldid=634324032 his removal of the subsections] as "I removed the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=634128193&oldid=634126149 repetitive text]". In fact this referred to a different edit, but as this seemed to be the only issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=634327524 I reinserted the subsections] without the repetitive text. My edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=634329279&oldid=634327524 was then reverted] for a different reason by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zad68 Zad68]. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&diff=634334064&oldid=634334021 explained on the talk page] that there was no consensus for the removal of the subsections and that as per WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:BRD the subsections should be reinserted. No agreement was really reached on this point and subsequently the subsections have still not been reinserted. The section name "Progression" has however (currently) been changed to a much better "Device Generations".Levelledout (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The problems were already explained at Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Removal_of_bullet_points_in_a_list_and_renaming_the_section. Now editors can work together to remove the unreliable sources from the construction section. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Electronic cigarette}} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

:Thank you, the only user not added that was active in the discussion was CheesyAppleFlake. But [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:CheesyAppleFlake they were banned this morning] so I didnt see the use in adding them. But they were against the removal of the sub-subsection headers on the talk page. AlbinoFerret 20:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

::I think you still need to notify the users on their respective talk pages as this doesn't seem to have been done automatically.Levelledout (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

:::I thought it was, Ill do it now. AlbinoFerret 02:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

:::I just finished, I even added one to Cheesy's talk page, but I think its insane to notify a banned person. AlbinoFerret 02:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

::::User:CheesyAppleFlake was indefinitely blocked, not banned, and so they might be unblocked if they post a valid unblock request. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::While I doubt it will happen, I have added Cheesy to the section manually. I do hope he becomes unblocked at some point. AlbinoFerret 04:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Its real hard to solve problems when there is no involvement on one side. AlbinoFerret 17:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

:Still waiting for User:Zad68 and User:Johnuniq to add summaries and indicate that they'd like to participate in a moderated discussion here at DRN (which is voluntary).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The topic may be moot, after expanding the sections as I had planed I added the section headers today. So far they have remained on the page. Ill post here tomorrow and if they are still up this can be closed. AlbinoFerret 02:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The section headers have remained, please close this as its a moot point at this time. AlbinoFerret 20:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|Filing editor has not made a single edit to the article talk page. Very premature Cannolis (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|91.46.221.102|18:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Anusara School_of_Hatha_Yoga#Anusara_School_of_Hatha_Yoga_yoga}}

Users involved

• {{User|discospinster}}
• {{User| 91.46.221.102}}

Dispute overview

The "Anusara yoga" school has been renamed "Anusara School of Hatha Yoga" after the 2012 scandal, which led to John Friend leaving the organization. So John Friend never did found "Anusara School of Hatha Yoga" and he never in his life started a class in "Anusara School of Hatha Yoga". I corrected the wording accordingly, but discospinster, in his apparent ignorance of the subject matter, always reverts the changes, blocks the page and even calls me a vandal.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried it like three times right now

How do you think we can help?

Revert changes to version as of 13:58, 24 November 2014‎

It's a lonely discussion if nobody's answering it.

Contrary to the claim above, there has been no discussion of this issue on the talk page. Accordingly I suggest that this thread be summarily closed. '91.46.221.102' take it to the talk page as is required, and try to resolve it there first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{DRN archive top|mainly appears to be a conduct dispute, which we do not handle. WP:ANI may be appropriate, however by the looks, it may be the initiator here who should be taken there. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{drn filing editor|106.215.141.16|11:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Hridayeshwar Singh_Bhati}}
• {{pagelinks|_not_this_shit_again.jpg}}
• {{pagelinks|Talk:Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati}}
• {{pagelinks|Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati }}

Users involved

• {{User|Yunshui}}
• {{User| NeilN}}
• {{User| Bbb23}}
• {{User| list goes on..A Gang of lot many led by Yunshi sir & Neil N Sir }}

Dispute overview

The article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati" is rolling in the muck of tug of war between Wikipedia editors. Even administrator (Yunshui) of this article is not looking after this article rather he & Neil N are busy insulting the contributors. They do not complete the article..Rarely update it..Abuses + Humiliate + Insult the contributors. Moreover they have lot of support from other gang members of their group to BLOCK SOCK MEAT PUPPET etc. Ask these Wikipedian editors of this article to Google search "Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati" for last one month period. You all will be shocked : The subject won real hero award at national level + A Book was written on the subject +..lot many (That too supported by Hundreds of reliable & verifiable references) Were they sleeping..Even if they were sleeping i tried to wake them up by mine contribution on talk page sections..Wake up Wake up..Do they want money from the subject or Do they want the subject or his family should beg to these dictator Wikipedians. I challenge this gang, if they really have guts, please allow other wikipedian editors to Analyze the editing History of this Gang for this article. Whom to complaint..When i raised my voice..Other editors came & blocked me...RESPECTED DIGNITIES OF WIKIPEDIA THE WHOLE ARTICLE & THE WHOLE TALK PAGE OF THIS ARTICLE IS IN THE CRUEL HANDS OF THESE DICTATORS..GANG..

EVIDENCES::

Analyse last 5 sections of talk page...How this gang behaved

Analyse the way this gang of editors reciprocate with the contributors of last 5 sections

Every one except this gang, who contributed to this article is SOCK, MEAT, PUPPET

Despite the fact that contribution & suggestion were made on talk page..Still insulted + Abused.

Honest Confession::Most of the IP were mine & Most of the contribution was from me..That too for impressing the subject & His family. I am wrong & admit it

This gang will be Unmasked::Analyse the Edit history of this Article Page & Talk Page..

REGARDS.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Admitted my mistake today on the wall of all of them many times..Even today did same..Never Contributed on Article directly, but on talk page..Always suggested them..That too on Talk sections..The whole day & for last one month doing same..Neil N do only one job..Reverting & Insulting & Deleting and he is having the support of Administrator sir & Many. Respected dignities he has added nothing for a long period. Further check Ticket#2014112010004983 = Efforts of Father of the subject for same::I confessed my crime & Narrated him the situation & He took this action. Check E-mails from sarowersinghbhati41@gmail.com to info-en@wikimedia.org, arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org More efforts evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati#This_is_pure_dictatorship_and_not_editing_:_With_Evidence_:_People_insulted_and_Subject_degraded_:_Appeal_to_Highest_body_of_Wikipedia_to_Interfere106.215.141.16 (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

1. Analyze edit history last one month of this article & its talk page & Punish the culprits & Do Justice with the article..Update + Complete + Contribution that were reverted or deleted should be analyzed again by respected editors of wikipedia who are not in their influence & more senior to them

2. I Should also quit Wikipedia for ever.

3. Ask these editors to type, "Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati" on Google search, last one month period so that they feel ashamed

3. There should be a proper way

106.215.141.16 (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note this is a serial sockpuppeteer: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarower_Sigh_Bhati/Archive --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|Closed}}

{{drn filing editor|178.167.254.22|00:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason= After 16 days no DRN volunteer has accepted the case and not even the filing party has participated in several days. — Keithbob • Talk • 21:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Energy returned_on_energy_invested#Wikitable_EROEI_-_energy_sources_in_2013}}

Users involved

• {{User| Rfassbind}}
• {{User| 161.73.149.112}}
• {{User| 151.226.217.232}}

Dispute overview

Repeated deletion of a peer-reviewed paper and its accompanying table, which details the Energy return on investment of a number of energy sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on the talk page, and clearly explained to interested parties that its values are in-line with that found by other respectable researchers such as those in the IEEE etc.

How do you think we can help?

Make the reverting editors aware that wikipedia is a platform to summarize peer-reviewed science on an issue, and if they do not desist in deleting the peer reviewed paper and its table, it may possibly be required to protect the page from vandals.

{{quotation | First Response:

:Prologue - ad hominen: First, let me mention a personal matter: I questioned the objectivity of a [http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf publication by Weissbach et al.]. This, however, does not give User 178.167.254.22 the license to attack my devotion to a number of related articles on wikipedia, since this dispute is not about me against the author of the publication. It's about whether the publication is in line with the overall consensus and whether it should deserve that much of attention. I have already ignored a previous accusation of me "feigning the inability to find the [appropriate] reference", just because I added a "citation needed" to an unsourced wikitable. Please note, that I will refrain myself from any further discussion if these attacks continue, and I kindly ask any wikipedia admin for guidance.

:EROI: Energy Returned on Energy Invested is a complex subject, especially when renewables are compared to conventional energy sources. [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eroi-behind-numbers-energy-return-investment/ This article] in scientific american gives an overview (note the mentioned EROI for nuclear of 5). The [http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf study in question is by D. Weißbach]. On the talk page I have pointed out that the results for photovoltaics do not match other sources, in particular when comparing the related Energy Payback Time (6 years vs 2 years, see [http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/photovoltaics-report-slides.pdf Fraunhofer Report], page page 30 and 32, for multi-Si in Germany for 2011). A much more comprehensive criticism of Weissbach's study I found [http://energytransition.de/2014/09/renewables-ko-by-eroi/ here]

:Argument From Authority: User 178.167.254.22 emphasizes that the Weissbach study is peer-reviewed and therefore has to be included in the article. I have pointed out that Marco Raugei has openly criticized the publication's methodology. I suggest to consider his opinion. He is a cited author on important publications for the International Energy Agency [http://www.iea-pvps.org/fileadmin/dam/public/report/technical/rep12_11.pdf Methodology Guidelines on LCA of PV Electricity] who carried out research in the fields of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), environmental management and sustainability analysis, while for Daniel Weissbach is a nuclear physicist and has published about the Dual-Fluid-Reactor (what I have found so far).

:The article Low-carbon power also contains a wikitable displaying data from the Weissbach study.

:Summary: In my view there are so many question marks about one single publication, that it is hard for me to understand how it deserves that much of attention. After all, the article Energy returned on energy invested is not about German photovoltaics. One could as well cite the EROI of the new Topaz Solar Farm in the Mojave desert, as those figures would certainly be quite different (modern installation, high insolation in the US-South-West, a much faster payback time using CdTe PV technology, etc.). The fact that the Weisbach study assigns the highest EROI of 78 to nuclear, seems not that surprising. Also, the other chart in the article, commons:File:EROI - Ratio of Energy Returned on Energy Invested - USA.svg, strongly contrasts this claim. Last but not least: User 178.167.254.22 seems to have used figures that are not even in the Weissbach study. If I'm not mistaken, he averaged himself the figures for PV and coal without even mentioning it. -- Rfassbind (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

}}

::{{quotation | Last Response:

:::With all due respect, these attacks are not acceptable. Whether I am "being honest" or a "anti-science dogmatists" is not for User 178.167.254.22 to decide. This is name-calling. I also have a hard time to conceive why I should be "blocked" from Wikipedia for {{oldid|Main Page|631968490|adding a "citation needed" tag to the article}} and posting my response on a dispute to which I have been summoned by that very same person. I therefore do not intend to continue this dispute, as previously said. This is all very disturbing.

:::Here are my recommendations for the article Energy returned on energy invested

:::* Redundancy: The article already contains an EROI chart. Any reader will most likely be confused by the divergent figures.

:::* Improvement: the article needs improvement and explain that there are two different EROI figures. One is the Primary Energy (EROI_PE) and the other EROI_EL for the produced electricity. They differ by an factor of 3 as the thermal conversion efficiency is about 31%. It is crucial for the article to explain to the reader that renewables such as PV and wind produce electricity, while the Prime Energy of fossil fuels do not yet consider the thermal losses when electricity is generated from it. Otherwise it is not an apple-to-apple comparison.

:::* Discrepancies: This [http://www.clca.columbia.edu/241_Raugei_EROI_EP_revised_II_2012-03_VMF.pdf publication]{{rp|13}} by Marco Raugei gives both EROI-figures (EROI_EL of 5.9 and recalculated in PE-equivalent EROI_PE-eq of 19) for multi-silicon rooftop PV. An EROI of 5.9 is not the same as the 3.9 by Weissbach. Combined with a different life-time used for PV systems, this results in the discrepancy I pointed out earlier (Energy Payback Time of 6 years).

:::* While Marco Raugei worked for IEA's [http://www.iea-pvps.org/ PVPS programme], an intergovernmental organisation, funded by dozens of industrial countries, the Weissbach publication origines from [http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/ Institute for Solid-State Nuclear Physics] is a non-profit research organizations that asks for [http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/donate paypal contributions].

:::* The study in question should not be given that much of attention, as it cherry-picks and uses outdated data and promotes EROI figures for nuclear that are in line with the nuclear industry. (See [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Energy-and-Environment/Energy-Analysis-of-Power-Systems/ website] of the World Nuclear Association)

:::* A wikipedia article should be as international as possible. This study concentrates on Germany (I have made the point that one might as well choose to use CdTe-technology figures. Both, German PV and CdTe-technology account for about 5% of worldwide deployment in 2014. The result, however, would be quite different, as the EROI_PE-eq of CdTe is 38, or 10 times higher than the Weissbach figure).

:::* Apologies for my wrong assumption about the averaged figure. I wasn't aware that key-figures of the study have to be looked up in a bar-chart diagram without any further explanation. -- Rfassbind (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

}}

{{collapsetop|Collapsing wall of text riddled with grossly inappropriate commentary about the opposing editor}}

{{quotation | Reply to Rfassbind's "First Response":

Prologue -ad hominem against 6 scientific authors by Rfassbind. As can be found in the talk page discussion, Rfassbind put forth their own unfounded theory that the SIX scientists(Weißbach et. al) who authored the paper, and which [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544213000492 was peer-reviewed in the journal of energy], held strong opinions about photovoltaics even before selecting the data and designing the methodology for [their] calculation. I simply responded to this bizarre claim made by Rfassbind that, contrary to his claim, "from [his] talk page and edit history one gets the impression that it is in fact [He] who hold[s] strong opinions about [solar] photovoltaic[s] and not the trans-Atlantic team of scientists. Therefore I do not consider you to be an unbiased editor on this topic, considering your devotion to your favorite energy source."

I do not consider this to be an attack on Rfassbind, but rather an obvious observation. Rfassbind is very, shall we say, 'involved' with his favorite energy source, even creating the ad hominem charge, out of thin air - that the six scientists first stated their solar opinions and THEN selected data. When that isn't supported at all, and really, where in the blazes did they even get that idea? Was he standing over them while they went writing the thing? Is it not far more likely that the 6 scientists found reputable data and then summarized their findings in text form? Rfassbind essentially put forth the belief that they "were out to discredit solar from the beginning" - which is a serious ad hominem claim that these scientists weren't being reputable scientists at all. Which is a serious claim to make, especially when he hasn't even provided any evidence, for the chain of events he subscribes to. Do you not all agree?

EROEI:

Rfassbind, the very link you sent here, generally supports the values in the D. Weißbach ET AL paper. [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eroi-behind-numbers-energy-return-investment/ This article] by the AMERICAN publication, Scientific American gives an overview of EROEI. Note the mentioned value of 6 for Solar PV in the US, and EROI for nuclear being about 5, but even these authors state that this value of 5 for nuclear is with the old and since obsolete American diffusion enrichment method. The sci Am author acknowledges the fact, that with the more efficient and not to mention more common centrifuge enrichment, nuclear's value is up in the ~"40-60" range. - All this is in perfect harmony with what the paper by the 6 scientists found - The [http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf study in question by D. Weißbach ET AL. states the Solar PV's EROEI is about 3 in GERMANY, and that nuclear power's EROEI is ~70.] (As no one, not even the US, use the 1940s diffusion enrichment process anymore.)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#Economic_influence_of_EROEI])

Secondly, as I have already written in the talk page: "despite Rfassbind's filibustering, the EROI of ~ 3 for solar "PV in GERMANY" found in the peer-reviewed 2013 D. Weißbach et al paper, is perfectly in line with the most up to date figures expounded by IEEE researchers in 2014, that the EROEI of solar photovoltaic(PV) electricity is likely in the range 2.2 to 8.8.[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2014.2332092]

The [http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf authors of Weißbach et. al state on page 14], other papers - results "from Battisti et al., Ito et al, Meijer et al. and another paper from Alsema are all in good agreement [with their solar PV value] but less detailed." - which displays that a clear scientific consensus has formed. Also on page 14 they state that " For locations in south Europe, the EROIs are about 1.7 times higher [than ~3] due to the higher solar irradiation, but a higher irradiation also speeds up the aging [of the solar panels]".

As for your, so called - "...comprehensive [but not peer-reviewed] criticism of Weissbach's study I found [http://energytransition.de/2014/09/renewables-ko-by-eroi/ here]". - I don't really need to say anything on this non-peer reviewed, German state funded, author's attempt to critique the Weißbach ET AL study. As thankfully someone already has taken that piece to task! Read Cyril R's reply found in that link, they expose each and every one of the the authors "criticisms" as fraudulent bias. As this section was getting a little too long, for the sake of readers and brevity, I cut my retort to the above link, and instead posted it on User:Rfassbind's talk page, which you can read there if you're interested, and its not deleted.

Argument From Consensus and peer review The paper written by the 6 scientists(Weißbach et. al) and undeniably peer reviewed, is as the paper itself states on pg 2 "...the most extensive overview so far based on a careful evaluation of available Life Cycle Assessments (LCA)." It therefore presents values that are in line with the consensus, even the sci-american link Rfassbind sent to you backs up the paper's general findings, as does the above linked IEEE paper, Solar has a EROI of: "2.2 to 8.8". Moreover as [http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf the authors of Weißbach et. al state on page 14], other papers results - "from Battisti et al., Ito et al, Meijer et al. and another paper from Alsema are all in good agreement [with their solar PV value] but less detailed." - So clearly a scientific consensus is evident here.

While sure, Marco Raugei(a solar advocate) criticized the publication's methodology in a reply, his criticism has not been peer-reviewed. Moreover the 6 scientists responded to Raugei's criticism, and put his concerns to bed over 6 months ago.[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544214001601] Lastly, did I mention that the paper was written by SIX scientists and therefore Rfassbind's above attempt to focus on, and undermine the lead author - D. Weißbach, is misleading in the extreme? How about you do the honest thing and lay out the qualifications of all SIX authors Rfassbind? and then lay out all the qualifications of those that peer-reviewed the paper in the journal of Energy, you know the editor of the journal? Then juxtapose these qualifications with the criticisms Raugei has been embroiled in, and the amazingly high and not at all consensus solar EROEI, that Raugei now suggests? I look forward to you being honest and laying all that out here Rfassbind.

Summary: The EROI for each energy source obviously depends upon the environment in which they are installed. Whether it be a solar panel stationed at the poles of the earth, in moderately sunny Germany or desert environments. Likewise, it depends on if nuclear enrichment is done by the now defunct diffusion enrichment process or the centrifuge enrichment process etc. Even Rfassbind seemingly acknowledges this above. Yet he has consistently removed all mention to this 2013 peer reviewed paper by the transatlantic team which is mindful of the factors EROI depends upon. For what seems to be his dislike of presenting the EROEI of solar PV in Germany. A paper that, as I have detailed above, represents the overall scientific consensus.

What would be misleading and highly questionable, I hope you'd all agree, is if the researchers only picked a Solar PV value from up at the north pole, and likewise, it would be misleading if they picked one at sunny equator based deserts. Germany is a logical mid point, not least because the Germans have installed a lot of Solar PV, and so presently lead the world with installed solar PV so there is lots of data from that program, unlike the folks, or lack thereof installing Solar PV at the North pole and equator. This is the most logical approach, and so it's used in the paper, they don't pick the cutting edge most advanced hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, etc technology, which has been operating for a whole of say 10 minutes, with little real world data backing it up. They as you will learn if you read the paper, analyze the already established power stations that represent the most common method of gaining energy from that source and which have a large body of data available on their performance.

That is, not experimental Solar panels just out of the research lab and placed in the Nevada desert for 10 minutes, and not the most optimum location for the energy source either, with its respective equivalents: The largest hydroelectric dam "Itaipu Dam"(which the http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf Weißbach et al paper even mentions on pg 18]), and not cutting edge massive 4 MW wind turbines installed at the rare places on the globe with consistently high wind speeds, and not the likes of nuclear [[BN-800 reactors with advanced LASER enriched uranium built say right next door to a uranium mine and enrichment center - No, they pick the most commonly installed average example of that technology, which is therefore emblematic of that technology. This to me seems to be a fair, logical and scientific approach, not biasing in favor of any 1 technology.

But for some reason Rfassbind doesn't like this approach being applied to solar? and has yet to give a convincing reason why. Germany leads with installed Solar capacity right now, does it not? Yes, yes it does. So what's wrong with primarily analyzing Solar power in Germany?

[http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf As the authors of Weißbach et. al state on page 14], other papers - results "from Battisti et al., Ito et al, Meijer et al. and another paper from Alsema are all in good agreement [with their solar PV value] but less detailed." - Therefore Weissbach et. al's findings are in line with the scientific consensus.

There are not "so many question marks" about the Weißbach et. al paper as Rfassbind suggests, as it plainly states the ~ 3 value is for a climate like that of Germany, the table I made and which Rfassbind removed from the article, also clearly stated this value is for Germany. Not to mention, the authors of the paper responded to Marco Raugei's criticisms over 6 months ago in a April 2014 reply, putting to bed all these supposed "question marks".[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544214001601]

Finally, the other chart Rfassbind linked to in their above summary is from 2010 and from the US, and judging by how he presents it, it seems he wishes to try to suggest that seen as that chart presents a value of ~10 for nuclear, he wants you to believe that the paper under question is biased towards nuclear because it instead gives a value in the high 70s. However as we have detailed in the wiki article, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#Economic_influence_of_EROEI]] that value is for nuclear+1940s style US diffusion enrichment, that no one uses anymore, not even the US.] So here again, he is trying to create an air of uncertainty about the paper, when as he knows full well, there really isn't one.

Oh wait 1 more thing, as for your - "Last but not least, User 178.167.254.22 seems to have used figures that are not even in the Weissbach study. If I'm not mistaken, he averaged himself the figures for PV and coal without even mentioning it."

Another false and not to mention, snooty, claim. The values in the wiki table that I created, a table still found in low carbon power, are exactly the same as those found in graph form in the scientific paper(figure 3, pg 29) - which Rfassbind obviously didn't read thoroughly - and so Rfassbind is as he expected, unsurprisingly "mistaken" on this - But at least on this, he anticipated he'd be wrong, because you have yet to read the paper thoroughly, right? What an unsurprising revelation Rfassbind, at this stage, I'm not even surprised that you have essentially just admitted to never having read the paper in full. You try to discredit the paper, yet you haven't even read it in full! and you're here trying to convince people you understood it?

As I have now thoroughly dealt with each of his claims above. Can someone just (1)revert the article Energy returned on energy invested to the state it was in on 9 November, before the table and summary were removed, (2)then ban this guy from editing the page, and (3)put it under protection? I mean honestly, if you've read my rebuttal, you'll see that this is essentially like arguing with anti-science dogmatists, who refuse to read.

178.167.254.22 (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

}}

:{{quotation | Reply to "Last Response":

:::I am not "attacking" you Rfassbind. Nor are you merely someone who added an innocent citation needed tag, as you are here trying to suggest, but the only registered user who supported the removal of the peer reviewed paper done by our mystery British IP users(who I've exposed below). It's all there in the talk page history of EROI that you support the removal, so I can't really understand why you're even trying to omit your role in its removal.

::* Redundancy: The mind really boggles at how you try to argue, that the process of updating a wikipedia article with a more recent 2013 paper, which not only simultaneously internationalizes the article by having the updated paper be from Germany, when the older 2010 paper was from the US. But that you describe this whole updating process as "redundant". When in reality, if you really want to get into the game of calling certain tables and charts as redundant in our article EROI, then it would be the 2010 Murphy & Hall chart you bring up, as it is outdated. Are not its EROI calculations based upon life cycle assessments(LCA) with now defunct energy development stages? Specifically, with respect to nuclear power, the energy intensive and now totally defunct diffusion enrichment process? Yes it is! Honestly, [http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf if you had actually read the 2013 Weißbach et. al paper, you would already know this, the authors of that paper explain all this on page 22]. I will end this by expressing the opinion that the paper that should always be added, is most definitely, that which represents [http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf "...the most extensive overview so far (on EROI), based on a careful evaluation of available Life Cycle Assessments". Which is the Weißbach et. al 2013 paper you don't like.]

::* Improvement: Yes the article does need improvement, like including the most up-to-date paper on EROI, which is Weißbach et. al 2013 that you support keeping out of the article, for no rational reason. Your other suggestions on improvements to the article have little to do with the dispute in hand, and I feel that they are a bit of an attempt to capriciously divert from the fact that you refuse to allow the Weißbach et. al 2013 paper to be in the article. But seen as you brought it up, and once again if you had even read the Weißbach et. al paper, a paper that you so adamantly argue shouldn't be in the EROI article, you'd know that they do indeed discuss Exergy/(EROI_EL at length! Giving a weighing factor of ~3 for electricity. [http://energystoragereport.info/eroi-energy-return-on-investment-energy-storage/ Here's a third party source that corroborates, what I've just said, that the Weißbach et. al paper takes this into account, with ~3 being the reciprocal of 33% - the average thermal efficiency].

::* The alleged "Discrepancy" is in fact the opposite: - Rfassbind, contrary to being an example of "discrepancies" with Weißbach et. al. The paper you're just after linking to us(This [http://www.clca.columbia.edu/241_Raugei_EROI_EP_revised_II_2012-03_VMF.pdf publication]{{rp|13}} by Raugei which gives an (EROI_EL of 5.9 for Solar PV) That very paper states quite plainly on page 11 We also adopted the average southern European ground level insolation While as you know, Weißbach et. al's figure of ~3.9 for Solar PV is for GERMANY - a country not in south Europe. Furthermore as I have already written, in my last reply: That [http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf the authors of Weißbach et. al state on page 14]...For locations in south Europe, the EROIs are about 1.7 times higher [than ~3.9] due to the higher solar irradiation...". So once again, contrary to your own WP:OR/ideas ostensibly designed to stoke up a fake air of uncertainty about the Weißbach et. al paper, both of these papers are in resounding agreement. The Weißbach et. al paper is now quite clearly to all readers(even those who doubt like Rfassbind), reflective of the scientific consensus.

::* As for Marco Raugei, who you try to present as some kind of esteemed god of truth and sunshine. When in actual fact, I am going to come out and express my investigative evidence that - he in fact is one of those British IP users that came into our wikipedia article and censored the Weißbach et al study. Here's what evidence I have that seems a bit too coincidental to be mere chance - [http://mems.brookes.ac.uk/staff/marcoraugei.html Marco Raugei is based in Oxford Brookes University UK (not to be confused with the real Oxford Uni)]. The above [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/161.73.149.112 IP 161.73.149.112] user, who you can geolocate as from, you guessed it folks - Oxford Brookes University, first came in and essentially stated in the third person that the Weißbach paper is still "subject to scientific controversy" on 2 Oct 2014(a deceitful but not fatal move, as Raugei himself was responsible for stoking up most of the faux "controversy" in the 1st place) but then for some reason Marco Raugei(our mystery IP user) came back over a month later on Nov 4 2014 and deleted the entire section on Weißbach! Stating in the EROEI talk page that he removed the section, just below our friend Rfassbind's comment on that page. I'm completely aghast at this, surely to god there should be some type of wiki policy to prevent this sort of deceitful editing by those with vested interests?

::* The Weißbach et. al analysis of nuclear power is based on sound reasoning and detailed analysis of the frequent full life cycle assessments released by "Vattenfall" (http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf again, see their pg 22]). Therefore the paper, not surprisingly, comes to the same general ~70 EROI value for nuclear with centrifuge enrichment as did [[Melbourne University("93" see pg 22) and seemingly too the [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Energy-and-Environment/Energy-Analysis-of-Power-Systems/ World Nuclear Organization, here]. As all 3 use the full life cycle assessment(LCA) reports certified by - "Vattenfall (2007). Vattenfall AB Generation Nordic Certified Environmental Product Declaration, EPD, of Electricity from Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant." - Need I remind you that the Vattenfall LCA papers that they use, also found use in publications by the IPCC! Maybe you've heard of them, they're those world renowned climate guys? Here is the IPCC referencing the Vattenfall studies. In [https://ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/Annex%20II%20Methodology.pdf IPCC Annex II methodology see "Forsmark" as Vattenfall also do LCA studies on their hydro & wind stations]. So hardly being a fringe - only those industry guys - paper, the IPCC also clearly finds the Vattenfall reports on nuclear, and Hydro & wind mind you too, worthy of referencing. You also claim that Weißbach et. al "cherry-picks", but you've consistently failed to show even 1 actual example of this. If anything I've just shown you are the only actor in this dispute who has been shown to "cherry pick".

::* Wikipedia articles should indeed be international, yet according to your "redundancy" paragraph you're actually implicitly against this. The study rightly concentrates on German Solar PV, as Germany has had the greatest installed capacity of Solar PV in the world since 2005(not countries in dimmer nor sunnier climates). So it it's not only fair, but makes perfect sense to analyze German solar PV. I wrote this in bold earlier, because you consistently dodge the fact that - They, as you will learn if you read the paper, analyze the already established power stations that represent the most common method of gaining energy, from that source, and which [therefore] have a large body of available data built up on their performance. Lastly, and while indeed you have continually argued that "one might as well choose to use Cadmium Telluride "CdTe-technology...which account for about 5% of worldwide deployment in 2014." However each time you argue this, you demonstrate to everyone that the point has been completely lost on you. As once again, the Weißbach et. al paper analyzes the most common installed power sources that are emblematic of that technology - not emergent technology with little to no data on its actual full life cycle performance, with 1990s LASER enriched uranium being its equivalent, which as you'd know if you read the paper, likewise wasn't analyzed. Moreover as solar cells based on CdTe-technology, are not very common, a fact you openly admit yourself, making up a tiny fraction of worldwide solar PV - '5% of solar PV in the world as of 2014' and therefore have little real world life cycle data to really analyze, as of yet. I mean honestly, at this stage, I have to ask, did you not even read my earlier reply in full? I suppose I already know the answer to that, anyways, as [http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf |The authors of Weißbach et. al state on page 13] "only Silicon (Si) based PV technologies are applicable on a large scale, so only those have been evaluated here...CdTe-based cells are no option since there is not even a fraction of the needed...Tellurium available in the Earth crust". - So even if CdTe solar cells do show a higher EROI, one has to ask, so what? If nuclear power for example didn't work on common uranium and thorium but only on an element like Tellurium which is as as rare on the earth's crust as platinum, that would make it a neat idea, but it wouldn't be practical at all.

::* Finally, you know, I would accept your "apology" if you had actually acknowledged that you never read the entire paper, but seen as you didn't, and instead decided to use your "apology" to once again attack the Weißbach et. al paper - as if it was somehow the papers fault you didn't read it in full. I'm therefore, as you can imagine, not convinced by the sincerity of the apology.

::* I will onve again end my reply by requesting for someone at the administrative level to please just (1)revert the article Energy returned on energy invested to the state it was in on 9 November - before the Weißbach et. al table and summary were removed by Marco Raugei(or should I say our "mystery" IP user [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/161.73.149.112 IP 161.73.149.112] who just "coincidentally" edited from the very same country & town as him. (2)Then potentially think about talking to Rfassbind about, at the very least, enforcing a self ban, to not revert the page, and (3)Keep an eye out for any future IP editors blanking the peer reviewed & scientific consensus reflecting Weißbach et. al section? Thanks.

:::178.167.254.22 (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

{{collapsebottom}}

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Energy returned on energy invested} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: Only User:Rfass is participating after over 48 hours after filing. @TransporterMan may ping the involved IP editors to see if a response is taking place. Note also that filing IP editor is not on the list of participants for comment/summary. If there is no response within 24 hours from filing editor or otherwise then this matter may be assessed as stale and archived as such. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The filing editor here I replied before the above warnings "24 hours" elapsed, therefore it is not "stale". So no, don't delete, and please, I welcome all to help in the dispute. .178.167.254.22 (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

:: Administrative side note: The recommended length of a summary is 2,000 characters. You may keep your current summary length but be forewarned it could scare away potential DRN volunteers as many don't want to read a wall of text, especially at the onset of a case. There will be plenty of time to lay out the details of your position as the case develops. So consider cutting it back to 'summary' form and leaving out the references to other editor's actions or behavior which are inappropriate for DRN. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Comment from uninvolved editor: Both editors have now responded. It would be useful if the filing editor would indicate if the multiple sources are being presented for a single edit which is being disputed, or, if the multiple sources are being used for the intention of multiple edits. Also, IP editor @178.167.254.22 should note that if this matter is undertaken by a mediator, although it is not necessary to register as a user to edit, it would make it easier for participating editors to contact you and message you once a dispute is undertaken by someone. Its up to you, however, since there is no rule that states you need to register a user name. FelixRosch (TALK) 18:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

::::The Filing editors reply to FelixRosch I'm unfortunately not understanding what you mean by "multiple sources" Felix? Maybe if I stated my wishes here it might clarify matters? = I simply wish for someone at the administrative level to: (1)revert the article Energy returned on energy invested to the state it was in on 9 November - before the Weißbach et. al table and summary were removed by Marco Raugei(or should I say our "mystery" IP user [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/161.73.149.112 IP 161.73.149.112] who just "coincidentally" edited from the very same country & "university" that he "works at"). (2)Then potentially think about talking to Rfassbind about, at the very least, enforcing a self ban, to not revert the page, and (3)Keep the article under watch for any future IP editors(like Marco Raugei who as I detail above has a vested interest) blanking the peer reviewed & scientific consensus reflecting Weißbach et. al section of the article? As I think I'm past my 3 reverts at this stage and don't want the charge of "edit warring" being leveled at me. Much obliged!

:::::Comment from uninvolved editor: @IP editor; It shall be very difficult for any volunteer here to take up this matter if there is an unresolved issue of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY which needs to be resolved first. It is in your interest to resolve such matters first by reading the instructions in the link just provided on socks and to file the appropriate reports first on the separate investigation page and before seeking dispute resolution here. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

::::::Comment from uninvolved editor: I agree that if there is a case of sockpuppetry, it should be resolved. Let them who have the ability just do it. But that does not mean that the other issue could not be resolved first. Because we, as human beings, do not own the divine truth of things, we need science and lesser instruments such as Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs reliable sources, preferably scientific, when ever they are available. I think that this case crystallizes into a short question: What is real and good science? How this knowledge of science will be used in this particular case? Let them, who have the power resolve the sockpuppetry, that is fine. But let us not forget that the hot question is about using a scientific document as a reference on Wikipedia article. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear IP:178.167.254.22 and User:Rfassbind, your summaries are already overly long so please do not add anything further. Also DRN is not a place for commentary, accusations and allegations about each others behavior. We are here to discuss article content only. So please no more comments or references about each other.

User:FelixRosch and User:Nikolas Ojala your input is most welcome but only after a DRN volunteer has formally opened the case. If one of you would like to formerly open this case and moderate the discussion between the two parties then please free to do so by announcing yourself as the moderator. If you do not wish to moderate this case then please refrain from further, unmoderated, discussion until another DRN volunteer opens the case. Thanks for your help and understanding. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Temporary DRN coordinator while T-Man is away.

:The Filing editors reply to Keithbob: I do not intend to add anything further as I've already had to exhaustively debunk every one of the opposing editors arguments. I would now like to move on to having the edit reinserted into the article EROI before those with gargantuan conflicts of interest started vandalizing it. Moreover, I will not even entertain any more arguments from the opposition as I regard that to be a waste of time for all involved at this stage. Especially considering that, having given the utmost respect to the opposing registered editor - and therefore spending considerable amounts of my time to exhaustively reply/educate them on the unsuitability of each one of their arguments - I now get the insulting label that my efforts were a "wall of text". Despite my obvious intentional close following of the paragraph headings and order started by the opposing editor. Perhaps for those of you with short attention spans, it might be clearer to read both my own and the opposing editors contributions here in a stepwise fashion rather than in essay format? Such as placing their argument from "authority" first, with my responding paragraph titled argument from consensus and peer review directly after it, etc. I really couldn't care less if you wish to re-order the dispute in that fashion, if you so wish.

:Secondly User:Keithbob, I take issue with the recent edit of yours here in this dispute board, specifically, that my exhaustive replies to each of the opposing editor's arguments, warranted the marginalizing treatment you have given them. As, unless I'm mistaken, on 19 November 2014 you wrote to both of us to - "consider...leaving out the references to other editor's actions or behavior which are inappropriate for DRN" - I would gladly have done so if the opposing editor had taken the initiative and removed their argument claiming "ad hominem", which lets not forget now, is the very 1st opening argument here. If the opposing editor had taken your advice and removed this, then I would gladly have reciprocated the gesture. However they did not, and it now appears that only I am being targeted for this supposed infraction, which seems unfair, really what ever happened to the idea that - 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander'?

:To also reply to User:FelixRosch, I am not all that bothered with pursuing the conflict of interest issue, but for curiosities sake, is WP:SOCK the correct wiki-avenue to pursue when editors with glaring conflicts of interest vandalize page content concerning them?

:Finally, I think all editors here are in agreement that what this dispute is about, as Nikolas Ojala expertly reminded you all, is - "the hot question about using a scientific document as a reference on Wikipedia article."

:178.167.254.22 (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

::Comment from uninvolved editor; @IP editor, it would assist if you could focus your comment to your proposed edit alone by identifying it clearly and directly without any digressions. Just quote the edit which you are trying to post in the article directly, in order for some volunteer to evaluate it and see if they can moderate this dispute. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

:::Filing editor's reply to FelixRosch The article should be reverted back to the state it was in, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested | my last edit on 08:05, 9 November 2014‎ by 178.167.254.22]. I was unsuccessful at linking directly to that specific edit above, so the above is a link to the article, from where you can click "view history."

::::Comment from uninvolved editor:@TransporterMan; IP editor has been requested to post the disputed sentence here which has not been done in 4-5 days, in order for some potential moderator to possibly volunteer. If there is no further response or posting of the disputed sentence here within 24 hrs, @TransporterMan in justified to assess this matter as stale and subject to being closed. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}