Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Dragon Age: The Veilguard	In Progress	Sariel Xilo (t)	22 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 6 hours	Sariel Xilo (t)	1 days, 17 hours
Autism	In Progress	Oolong (t)	7 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Markworthen (t)	15 hours
Sri Lankan Vellalar	New	Kautilyapundit (t)	6 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 5 hours
Kamaria Ahir	Closed	Nlkyair012 (t)	4 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 8 hours
Old Government House, Parramatta	Closed	Itchycoocoo (t)	4 days, 4 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	23 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	23 hours
Imran Khan	New	SheriffIsInTown (t)	1 days, 19 hours	None	n/a	WikiEnthusiast1001 (t)	1 hours
2025 Bangladesh Premier League	Closed	UwU.Raihanur (t)	1 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 7 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 10:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Serena Williams

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Thad caldwell on 00:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Serena Williams (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Thad caldwell (talk · contribs) Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There has been an ongoing debate as to whether the mention of the Karsten Braasch vs. Serena Williams exhibition match warrants its own section or sub-section. It is my opinion that it is does not it help the article meet the criteria of length which requires that "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." Also, it is rather biasly written and needs to be edited for objectiveness and length. Although it was a Battle of the Sexes match it was still an exhibition that she played when she was 16 and no other top tennis player has a section of exhibitions on their page, not even Billie Jean King who arguably played the most monumental BOTS match of all time. I think would be a poor precedent to allow single exhibition matches to have their own section. Fyunk's argument was that it was a special match and needs to be mentioned. He also stated that because it's not a normal tennis match that it shouldn't just be listed under her professional career section. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Its my personal opinion that this bit of info doesn't need to be in the article period but I have conceded to leaving it in but not with it's own section. How do you think we can help? I believe if a third party can help us agree on how much detail is needed within the article and how sections and sub-sections should be used then a compromise would soon follow. Thank you. Summary of dispute by Fyunck Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. LOL, boy that was fast from a new editor. I have this listed at the Tennis project talk page so we'll see what they say. Basically we have a content dispute over the standing section on Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters. This new editor has decided that it cannot stay in a separate subsection for some reason. There had been talk a couple months ago (by an anon IP and another new editor), but it really went nowhere. I reverted it nonchalantly and he reverted back (which is not really kosher). I thought maybe if we changed things and put it in a subsection in the 1998 section of the article it would appease him. Apparently not because he insists on this Battle of the Sexes being eliminated or blended in with legitimate WTA events. That is a huge no for me and I believe the tennis community as well. He has no consensus to eliminate or move this section. Maybe being new he/she is not aware of wiki nuances so it's not like I'm upset about the situation. Everyone has to start somewhere. I don't think either of us went over 2 reverts so I'm surprised it's actually here. But here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Talk:Serena Williams discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - The inclusion of the proposed section has not been discussed on the talk page yet. Extensive talk page is a prerequisite to moderated discussion. I am neither accepting nor declining this thread, but am recommending that it be declined. After this question has been discussed inconclusively at length, it may be refilled without prejudice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Actually to be fair to user Thad caldwell, it had been discussed a couple months ago briefly and also in the last 24 hours. So while I believe he is in the wrong, it did have a little discussion on the talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Volunteer note - The discussion on the talk page had indeed been started two months ago, which is not recent, and then picked up in the middle of what otherwise appeared to be a stale section. I am neither accepting nor declining this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Volunteer note - I agree with the above, but I'm declining this, if the article is a stub, it should be moved into another sections. Period. TheJack15 (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Energy Catalyzer

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Robert92107 on 18:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs)
• Brian Josephson (talk · contribs)
• Cullen328 (talk · contribs)
• JzG (talk · contribs) aka Guy
• Robert92107 (talk · contribs)
• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• VQuakr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

(1) The article "Energy catalyzer" (aka E-cat) is a hot topic, since it involves highly suspect claims that have not been 100% backed up. There is also a long history of failures regarding statements of this device which have not come true. Hence, anything that does not bear directly on the validity of the device needs to be carefully weighed. (2) Recently a large capital investment firm in the US created a company to acquire rights to this device so that they can attempt to make it a viable device. (They also are currently conducting a one year test of the device, attempting to run it 24/7.) (3) I am attempting to add the investment information to a new section in the article (which I initially termed "Investment and commercialization"). I am willing to leave it only as "Investment" since the commercialization might be too forward looking at this point.

Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC) (4) A group of vociferous editors objects to any investment and device rights information in the article. I believe they have lost NPOV, since they mainly seem concerned about posting negative viewpoints about the device. They also deny the validity of the sources I've used, although they are good sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We've had repeated discussions in talk,

Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
but they have no inclination to compromise or to post specific edits to improve the quality of the section (except for the section title, which I agreed to). Rather, they have completely rejected anything to do with this content, and say it promotes a fraudulent device, regardless of the fact

the posting specifically concerns only investment and patent rights. Nowhere does the material say the device works, is for sale, or they are seeking investors.

How do you think we can help?

Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
One user characterizes these editors as a "cabal". I think there is blatant lack of NPOV. However, I am only one person.

I'd like some independent review of this matter. If I get a generally favorable response, I'm hoping that the weight of public opinion will allow me to post this data.

I believe that this is significant news re E-cat development. What are my other options? Create a new, associated article re E-cat investments? How could I believe they wouldn't go there and destroy it, too?

Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump

The sources cited are a press release, and an article on a local newspaper website which makes it clear that it is itself citing the press release for the relevant material. Even if this were not a controversial article, it is unlikely that we would consider such sourcing usable, and if we did there is still the question as to whether something only discussed by local media is significant enough to merit inclusion. And when it comes to the E-Cat, there is a long history of announcements of 'investors' of 'factories', and of similar claims all clearly being pushed with the intention of adding credibility to a device which not only has had no scientific recognition, but which flies in the face of current scientific knowledge. As has been repeatedly explained to Robert92107, Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of unverifiable claims about devices supposedly holding the key to the world's energy problems. If and when the E-Cat ever recieves scientific recognition (as demonstrated through significant coverage in credible scientific journals) or if and when it ever becomes available for purchase (at which point, we can assume the scientific community will be scrutinising it intensely) it will of course be Wikipedia's responsiblity to report the matter. Meanwhile, this latest vague statement about unspecified 'intellectual property rights' being purchased for unspecified sums of money doesn't belong in the article. There is nothing substantive to report here, and nothing to indicate that this latest unspecified deal is of any more lasting significance than the long line of previous business arrangements regarding the E-Cat - all of which have proven to be illusory. Including this latest promotional puffery - devoid of meaningful content - while excluding the past similar claims (notably Defkalion, and the mysterious 'factory' in the U.S. which never appeared) would be grossly misleading. THe E-Cat is notable for the claims being made about the device itself, not the repetitive string of vague announcements concerning business deals that never result in anything - and per WP:CRYSTALBALL we certainly shouldn't be including the latest one just because someone expects it to be different this time. If it ever amounts to anything, we can write about it, but meanwhile it is just mundane PR, promoting a device for which there is zero scientific credibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

A comment regarding Professor Josephson's statement:

Almost nothing he has written has any direct bearing on the dispute raised by Robert92107 - the question as to whether the article should include material on the business deal between Rossi and Industrial Heat.

Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Instead, we have his personal commentary on the general plausibility or otherwise of the E-Cat (which is as he is well aware, entirely at odds with the relevant sources by Wikipedia standards - recognised current scientific understanding and consensus), interspersed with allegations of 'dubious exploitation of the rules', 'the usual excuses' and other assertions about the behaviour of contributors.

As is made abundantly clear at the top of this page, the dispute resolution notice board does not discuss behavioural issues, and nor is it a platform for general commentary about article content.

Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Professor Josephson is of course perfectly entitled to raise any supposed behavioural issues at the appropriate noticeboard, but I see no reason why he should be entitled to use this noticeboard as a soapbox, and accordingly wish to make it clear that, given that participation in dispute resolution is voluntary, I will have no further part in this process if it is to be sidetracked by such matters, and accordingly ask that Professor Josephson revises his statement so as to stay on topic, and to discuss the issue in dispute rather than repeating the same complaints that he has made numerous times before - complaints which the community has had ample opportunity to discuss, and has never given any significant credence.

Allowing this discussion regarding a specific issue to become sidetracked in such a manner would not only be a misuse of this noticeboard, but would almost certainly guarantee that no resolution could be reached. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on repetitive off-topic discussions in places where no resolution to such off-topic issues could be reached anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Brian Josephson

First of all, since I was the person who used the word cabal, the group concerned is technically not a cabal as they probably do not communicate directly with each. Nevertheless there is indirect communication on the basis of their seeing each other's edits and comments. In addition there is an element of secrecy involved in the way these individuals do not publicly announce what appear, on the basis of a study of their edits, to be their aims in the way that some other groups do. It is convenient to use the word cabal in the absence of any brief more accurate way to capture what I see happening. But let me get down to business. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC) So sorry if my writings do not come up to AndyTheGrump's stringent requirements!! I suggest, though, that people who study what I have written carefully will see that in fact most of it is relevant, either to the point at issue or as a response to comments that others have made in this dispute resolution process (even if not so visibly relevant that AtG can see the connection). Perhaps the complaint should be that the others to whom I have responded have wandered off topic but I think that where appropriate what they say should be answered. AtG also makes the point that what I say here are points I have already made. And why not, if whover is making the decisions isn't familiar with the points and they are equally relevant here? And I think it also needs to be asked in what way AtG's criticisms advance the dispute resolution? What may I ask is the intent behind them, other than an attempt to discourage people from reading my summary? By the way, JzG seems to be doing exactly the things that AtG is complaining about in my writings. Perhaps the two should get together and argue it out among themselves. Sorry to be commenting on other people, but I was not the one who started that process. Brian Josephson (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

1. I should say first of all that I have no particular objection to Cullen's suggestion that press release language be transformed into encyclopedia language. However, such conversions might be attacked by some on the basis of being OR. An alternative, perhaps more in line with w'pedia's verifiability requirement, would be to quote the precise words, making it clear that it is a quote by putting it in quotes.
2. In response to a comment by Johnuniq, there is an interview with Darden of IH that makes it clear that he believes, on the basis of evidence that he has been involved in, that the e-cat has a lot more than 1 in 100 chance of success (he says for example 'we’ve seen some really good stuff'). That interview could well be included but in any case it renders that criticism invalid.
3. There is a lot of talk (e.g. by Guy/JzG) of 'consensus'. That's a tricky word that disguises the fact that there is a considerable range of opinion as regards LENR in general, rather than there being almost total agreement that there is error, from those who have looked properly into the experiments. This not at all like the N-ray situation, where a problem was found with the experiments, following which research in the area was dropped by scientists as it was clear the flaw explained everything. With cold fusion/LENR, there is no corresponding flaw that makes the effects go away, and experienced scientists still get effects (though not with total reproducibility, which may be expected sometimes where materials are involved).
   The e-cat is different in that the situation is not clear-cut in the same way, but that is only to be expected where we have a to some degree paranoid individual who sees people trying to steal his intellectual property everywhere. The idea that this is fraud is just hypothesis, no more than that. Of course, if one believes that LENR is impossible one will be led to postulate fraud regardless of lack of clear evidence, but the case of pyrofusion shows how difficult it is to be sure of anything in physics though of course in the LENR case we have no detailed theory (but the same applied to superconductivity for many years).

Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What I find particularly bothersome here is that many of the edits involve what appear to be dubious exploitation of the rules and unconvincing arguments to remove useful information. Take for example the oft-repeated suggestion that some of the material cited is promotional in character. Almost all announcements are to some extent promotional in character, for example the announcement of evidence for the Higgs boson. There are plenty of reasons for making announcements and we should not assume that an announcement is primarily promotional (and there can be a case for including informative promotional announcements in any case. I'd like to mention In particular the stenuous attempts to prevent material being cited by Mats Lewan, who is conatantly described in belittling terms, such as that he is only promoting is book, and has only a Master's degree whose only value (it is suggested) is that of getting you a discounted cup of coffee. In fact, Lewan is very well qualified both in terms of his qualifications and the amount of time he has spent researching Rossi and the e-cat. In the real world, rather than the bizzare w'pedia incrowd that places dubious emphasis on irrelevancies, he would be regard as very well qualified and an excellent source. There is also the business of editors busy removing any suggestion that Rossi's patent has anything to do with the e-cat, conveniently using the usual excuses to explain that we cannot take into account Lewan's analyses. The fact that the patent does not refer to LENR or whatever is an irrelevancy for reasons that have been explained elsewhere. It is time I summed up. Quite simply, it should be clear to anyone who looks dispassionately into the matter that a group of editors are systematically working to remove any material that might enhance the credibility of the e-cat, citing reasons that are distinctly unconvincing. They seem to think this is a good thing whereas I see it as considerably diminishing the value of the article. If there are reasons for doubting the e-cat, these can be included and the reader can then decide how cogent they are.

Brian Josephson (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cullen328

In my judgment, the edits in question were an attempt to add promotional language to the article in order to state that the E-Cat device works as claimed and is on the brink of commercial success. We need vastly better sources for any such claims than a press release sent out by the investment company through PR Newswire.

The phrase "an accelerator for environmental startups" is promotional marketing jargon copied directly from the press release, and the phrase "noted that performance validation tests were conducted in the presence of their staff and validated by an independent expert before the rights were purchased," also copied, strongly and falsely implies that the device has been proven to work. The fact that a local business journal repeated some of the statements from the press release in a little article does not transform the press release into a reliable source. That is what local business journals do most of the time as opposed to independent reporting. This reporter was careful to note that the press release was the source of the information, an indication that little independent reporting was done, other than to summarize and link to a story critical of the device.

Copied from that story is "Terms of the deal were not announced, but a US Securities filing reported that $11.6 million has been invested in the firm." Why should an encyclopedia be commenting on what was not announced? The amount of money mentioned is trivial in the world of technology start-ups and investment banking, and unworthy of mention in an encyclopedia in this context.

Then we have, "Vaughn said the firm is most interested in making the technology more widely available to universities, non-governmental organizations, and industry partnerships to further its development", again copied from the news article and the press release and more promotional marketing language.

The edit warring to add this promotional material is just another episode in the long campaign to transform this Wikipedia article into a marketing brochure for the utterly unproven E-Cat device. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC) I have been accused of being part of a cabal. If that is true, then I have not noticed my invitations to the cabal meetings, where I am sure the finest wines and hors d'oeuvre are served. Please forward those invitations to my email address. I love that kind of stuff and it seems like I have been missing out, much to my chagrin.

Here is a comparison to the language that the OP has proposed to add to the encyclopedia, alongside language from the press release issued by the company in question.

Proposed encyclopedia language:

"Industrial Heat LLC acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi’s E-Cat."

Corresponding press release language:

"Industrial Heat, LLC announced today that it has acquired the rights to Andrea Rossi's Italian low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technology, the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat)."

Proposed encyclopedia language:

"J. T. Vaughn, manager of Industrial Heat LL, and founder of Cherokee McDonough Challenge (an accelerator for environmental startups), noted that performance validation tests were conducted in the presence of their staff and validated by an independent expert before the rights were purchased."

Corresponding press release language:

Mr. Vaughn confirmed IH acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi's LENR device after an independent committee of European scientists conducted two multi-day tests at Rossi's facilities in Italy.

The published report by the European committee concluded, "Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources" [referring to energy output per unit of mass]. The report is available online at http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913. In addition, performance validation tests were conducted in the presence of IH personnel and certified by an independent expert.

...and later "JT Vaughn manages Industrial Heat. He is the founder of Cherokee McDonough Challenge, an accelerator for environmental startups, and a leader in the startup community in the Research Triangle.""

Proposed encyclopedia language:

" Vaughn said the firm is most interested in making the technology more widely available to universities, non-governmental organizations, and industry partnerships to further its development."

Corresponding press release language:

"They have committed to make it broadly available because of its potential for impact. IH is considering partnerships with industry participants, universities and NGO's to ensure the technology is developed in a thoughtful and responsible manner".

This is not neutral encyclopedia writing, but rather overly close paraphrasing of a non-neutral promotional press release issued by the investing company. If this is neutral encyclopedia writing, then someone should code a "Press release rewrite bot" to automate the process. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by JzG

The statement of the dispute is not neutral. In addition to begging the question, the claims which have "not been 100% backed up" have, in fact, been approximately 0% backed up, if not entirely debunked, according to reliable sources cited in the article. The group of "vociferous editors" has. between them, well over a quarter of a million edits to Wikipedia going back over ten years and includes one of the 500 most active Wikipedians and an admin with a decade of mop-wielding. This is not a dispute between long-time contributors with equal experience, it is a dispute between a relatively inexperienced editor and a number of very experienced editors, where the inexperienced editor insists that his, and only his, judgement of the application of WP:PAG is correct. Those of us with much more experience than the filing party could legitimately consider this quite rude. Instead we have taken great pains to explain the situation, alas without success. We are, of course, entirely used to seeing a steady stream of newcomers arriving at contended articles to "fix" our "bias" towards scientific rationalism - the term of art I usually use is "rebunking". See Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans for Jimbo's take on this.

The E-Cat is an implausible device which is promoted by Andrea Rossi, a convicted fraudster. He has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the scientific community, that the device works. From the lede:

The device has been the subject of demonstrations and tests several times, and commented on by various academics and others, but no independent tests have been made, and no peer-reviewed tests have been published. Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end."[10]

The article has been the focus of assiduous, if well-meaning, attempts to promote the device, using irrelevancies such as the award of a patent and articles based on press releases, misunderstood as independent sources.

Per WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia does not give equal weight to mainstream and fringe ideas. There is a non-trivial intersection with cold fusion, another article that has been the focus of relentless attempts by True Believers to use Wikipedia to change the real world, rather than reflect the real world in Wikipedia.

Most of the parties listed have spent forever explaining this to the minority who are in favour of boosting the probably-fraudulent product. There is no dispute, as such, just a steadfast refusal on the part of believers to accept consensus and policy. Robert perfectly exemplifies this by claiming that "the article should have a NPOV": in fact, it already does (and do look at his shouty FACT and REBUTTAL comments on the Talk page: this is WP:IDHT writ large). What he wants is a sympathetic point of view, which is non-neutral in the case of extraordinary claims made by fraudsters and not backed by robust evidence. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson: There is no cabal. It is neither surprising nor sinister that a random selection of long-time editors of Wikipedia have a common understanding of policy. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Robert92107

(A1)(C1) Andy and Cullen incorrectly imply all data came from a press release. The news journalist interviewed personnel at the company to confirm data in the press release, and added other data. The fact this is a local business journal (which is part of a nationwide chain of business journals) does not invalidate it as a source.

(A2)(C2) Andy and Cullen say this is an improper attempt to sell a fraudulent product or company. However, nothing is being offered for sale, there are no inducements for investors (in fact, I talked to the company today and they are NOT accepting investors), and there are no promises of future sales. Thus, there is no financial promotion in the material I'm trying to post.

(A3) Andy is also prejudging the value of this investment, and implies that an investment of over $11 million in the company is not real, and the transfer of rights is worthless. The investment can be easily validated, and the company has already has filed an international patent, so it is in operation with the stated amount of capital. The company was formed specifically with respect to E-cat rights and development (although that of course does not preclude them from other types of investments).

(A4)(C3) Andy and Cullen also seem fixated on the fear that this is a surreptitious attempt to validate the E-cat as a workable system, or to say or imply that it is on the verge of being validated or made into a workable product. What the sources cited say is that some testing was done BEFORE rights were purchased. The article says they are doing further work on the system (specifically they are doing a one year test). None of this says it works or that it will be working shortly, only that they are working on it. This is certainly allowable. (To my mind, the proper Wikipedia course might have been to add a caution not to read too much into the company's work, since the E-cat may not be workable at all. Why didn't they pursue that instead of pursuing an extreme position?)

(G1) Guy says there are no independent tests of the E-cat, but that is NOT the dispute in question here. This is about business matters ... company, capital, goals, patent rights, etc. (One of the problems I've encountered is people trying to argue other issues in this section.)

(G2) The thrust of the article should have a NPOV; what I am seeing here is prejudging this section on irrelevant grounds. Further, there is a balance between consensus and validation of new concepts in science. If only consensus could be relied on, most of the advances in science wouldn't exist today. Thus, Wikipedia editors can't say something like "we won't allow information about ongoing research in a disputed area because the consensus is that it can't work"! (Anybody remember Galileo?)

Note -- I want this section to focus on only what is provable fact, and that includes company data as well as reasonable statements from company officers relative to the goal of the company. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't want people to read things into it that just aren't there.

---

(B1) Brian raises some important concerns, however, many of them go beyond the specifics of this dispute. At issue here is news relative to a different phase in the process of attempting to make E-cat a viable system. I maintain that a company (1) specifically created to work on the system (2) by people with a track-record of involvement in environmentally-oriented businesses (3) with a significant amount of capital and (4) also specifically acquiring legal rights to the system IS notable. Any company that is announcing it is working on a new product (for example, Elon Musk saying he is creating a company to develop HyperLoop and capitalizing it with significant capital) would deserve notice on the W page for "hyperloop" irrespective of the fact that it is not a proven technology. The basic facts of the attempt to work on the technology in a serious manner deserve notice. Such a notice should not be assumed to be "promotional", but rather specific, relevant news on the topic. Of course, later on there will be follow up ... either success or failure will be noted. 2606:6000:C882:6000:6418:5FAF:422:94D2 (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

(J1) JzG is not on topic, since this is about the business posting, not proof of the system.

(J2) Past performance of any group of people does not prove anything in this specific context, so this is a flawed argument. It's not worthless, but the specifics of the case must be used and a past record may be relevant at times. In general, it is best just to look at the case in hand.

(J3) Likewise, allegations that this is a fraud or scam need to be substantiated. Wild assertions like this do more harm than good, and also reduce his credibility, since it shows lack of NPOV.

(J4) JzG says I am looking for a sympathetic audience. What I am looking for is feedback on whether my contention that this business effort working on E-cat is postable news. To me, the whole topic is not closed science as he (and others) seem to suggest. I think that the assertion that there is 0% proof of LENR is flawed, there is an implication that it could NEVER be substantiated that is unwarranted, and that there are a number of physicists who have examined the issue who are not dismissing the idea out of hand. I think the fact that someone is taking this seriously enough to put significant money into the research effort now is important. Few significant things have been accomplished without investment of time and money. Thus, to me this is the current state of the E-cat. Now, if we did not want to include current information in the article -- say post only data that was three years old -- then that would be a reasonable standard to omit this business effort. However, I don't see any notice at the top of the article that says "Data here is three years old; for more current information look elsewhere." Using that standard, users would know that the W article would be generally accurate, but not up to date. That is a reasonable compromise when you don't know how things will turn out. However, it seems to me that the company's existence and effort are very signifiant to the current state of the E-cat and the currency of the article. (I also have to wonder, would we even be having this discussion if the Dept. of Energy announced a year-long study of the E-cat and I was posting that? Would the objectors be saying that this wasn't relevant as they are now doing to a private company doing the same thing? I have to wonder.) 2606:6000:C882:6000:6418:5FAF:422:94D2 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you please go through the above and remove the comments about other editors? I started to collapse the comments about other editors but found that I would have to collapse a bunch of material, mostly consisting of a few words. We take the "only discuss article content, never user conduct" rule very seriously, because we want to break the cycle of doing what didn't work on the article talk page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ronz

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

As an editor that only recently became aware of the article (unless I've forgotten and the tools aren't working), I think the WP:BATTLE problems on the article talk page and here need to end, if we're to make any progress. I doubt anything short of bans/blocks will work. The article is under ArbCom sanctions, so such bans/blocks should be relatively easy through WP:AE. --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Putting aside the WP:BATTLE problems, the dispute concerns what, if anything, to include in the article about the purchase of i.p. and licensing rights for the device. The relevant policies here are WP:SOAP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:FRINGE; issues normally resolved by properly applying WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Note that there is no strong consensus (at least that I'm aware) for how to apply NOTNEWS - e.g. there is very little discussion on it at ArbCom. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by VQuakr

This is a dispute about whether announcements regarding corporate investment from last year are relevant enough to the article to merit inclusion. Relevant policies/guidelines include WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, and WP:SELFSOURCE. VQuakr (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Johnuniq

Re "so that they can attempt to make it a viable device": Investment firms often use a small fraction of their funds for bluesky projects—they expect the money to be thrown away, but they invest anyway because 1-in-100 of their investments might hit the jackpot, and that would be rich reward for all the failed investments. Even if the device fails every test, the investment firm could still make money by selling their rights to yet another speculative investor. The topic is major WP:FRINGE and the article is not available to record every adjustment of the deck chairs—the topic of the article is a device that generates energy; it is not about the ups-and-downs of a company. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer discussion

Extended content

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose (just put {{drn-notice|Energy Catalyzer}} — ~~~~ at the bottom of their talk page) or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Also, it appears to me that there may be other editors who were involved in the discussion at the article talk page who have not been listed here. If such is the case, please list them and create opening statement sections for them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Users all notified, one user added. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC) I added myself; please consider me notified. Willing to recuse myself if that is procedurally favorable. VQuakr (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this or object to my involvement for any reason, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Well, THIS is embarrassing... Before I wrote the above I checked to confirm that I had not edited the page or talk page in question, but I must have made a mistake, because it turns out that I have, back in 2012.[1] Because of this, I am offering to withdraw as mediator if anyone involved wishes me to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC) As long as (1) your earlier work was not closely related to this specific conflict, and (2) you believe that you can be neutral, I have no objections to you continuing to contribute to the resolution. In the interests fairness, you might want to disclose something about the earlier conflict. Robert92107 (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Same here! Brian Josephson (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your votes of confidence. For the rest of you, it really is OK to object, and I won't take it personally. I think I can be fair about the current dispute, but then again I may very well be blind to my own bias. As A DRN volunteer (as opposed to when I join a discussion on a talk page as an ordinary editor) I try really hard not to take sides but rather to facilitate discussion. And I will say that from what I have read so far I have a generally favorable opinion of everyone involved in this dispute. Re: disclosing something about the earlier conflict, I wouldn't really call it a conflict, because I thought both sides had some good points. As for specifics, in this edit,[2] I raised a question about sourcing for the claim of a factory in Florida. In this edit[3] I expressed an opinion on a proposed merge with another article. I would have to examine both articles as they exist now to decide if I still would support a merge. In this edit[4] I explained some common errors that people make when using "number of Google results" as evidence. In this edit,[5] I asked whether the Rossi energy amplifier is the same this as the Energy Catalyzer, and in this edit.[6] I defended Wikipedia's WP:OR policy. The two edits that seem most relevant to the current dispute are here[7][8] You can read the thread as it existed right before being archived here.[9] Search on the word "Macon" to see all my comments in context. Feel free to ask me "sharp" questions about any of the above edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC) I am still waiting for one last participant to either comment or indicate that he will not be participating before opening this up for discussion. I collapsed a bunch of comments about other editors, Feel free to remove the collapse and rewrite your comments so that they focus on article content, not user behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, everyone has made their initial comment, and I am opening this up for discussion. Based upon reading the article talk page and what went wrong there, I am going to try limiting the discussion to one issue at a time, and I would ask everyone to keep the responses short and to the point. Responding is OK, but please try to avoid a long back and forth thread. Say what you want to say once, let the other fellow have his say with a minimum of rebuttal, and give me time to mediate. I want to keep this discussion controlled and guided. You can, of course continue doing what you have been doing on the article talk page if you think the results will be different this time.

So, let's start with a simple question. Other than primary sources such as press releases and sources that reproduce press releases, do we have any sources for the material in question? Please note that I am not at this time implying that a press release alone merits or does not merit inclusion. Also, there is no need to comment at this`time as to quality of the sources listed. That will be my next question if there are any sources listed. Right now I just want to list all the known sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your straightforward question is similarly straightforward: no, we do not. Even if we did we would treat it with caution due to a long history of questionable claims by Rossi, but in this case it's not even borderline. The only source is a press release and churnalism based on that press release. Popular Science is an independent reliable source and finds no merit in Rossi's claims. They are extraordinary claims, of a kind that already ruined more than one career, and they are made by a convicted fraudster. It is right and proper to give more weight - substantially more - to this view than to credulous reporting or irrelevant factoids. The whole thrust seems to be to give an unwarranted impression of legitimacy.

This is a historical problem with all articles related to cold fusion, and it is not evil as such - people sincerely want it to be true, and want to reflect that belief on Wikipedia, but we follow the scientific consensus which will inevitably take some time to review and assimilate each new claim. Many articles on pseudoscience are besieged by "brand new research" that "proves" the claims, and that "brand new research" always turns out to be full of holes and not to change the scientific consensus. That's why we don't look to "breaking news", especially breaking news sourced directly from proponents of fringe claims, but instead wait until we have non-trivial independent commentary from which we can show both the claim and its reception and validity. Otherwise we risk misleading the reader by presenting unreviewed claims and giving trivial facts equal standing with thoughtful analysis. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If anyone thinks that Guy missed a source, now would be a good time to cite it. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Now I have a question for the other side of this dispute. This being an encyclopedia, the fact that some editors think that the press release is significant and other don't think so is irrelevant. Any arguments, no matter how good, for or against the significance of he press release are irrelevant. All Wikipedia cares about is whether a reliable, independent secondary source says that the press release is significant. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:PRIMARY. Can anyone name anyone not connected to the companies in question who has gone on record as saying that the contents of the press release are significant or even true? Again, at this time I am just looking to see if such a source exists. If one does my next question will be about the quality of the source. -Guy Macon (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Superdeterminism

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Tsirel on 17:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Tsirel (talk · contribs)
• Prephysics (talk · contribs)
• TimothyRias (talk · contribs) and more

Dispute overview

The single-purpose account "Prephysics" owned by Manuel Morales insists on advocating his fringe theory.

See Talk:Superdeterminism#Crankery or not and Talk:Superdeterminism#Edit war.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page, and on an AfD discussion.

How do you think we can help?

I do not know, but this is recommended as the next step; and clearly, we must do something! It should be better that the edit war that happens now, right?

Summary of dispute by Prephysics

I do not "insists on advocating a fringe theory". I am insisting on unbiased accuracy based on one incontestable and universal source, i.e., Nature, which is the central focus of "superdeterminism" and the loophole of John S Bell's theorem. The paradigm consisting of viewpoints are inherently ambiguous and subjective and therefore are inappropriate means to discuss a paradigm that is unambiguous, i.e., absolute determinism. In keeping with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, the Final Selection Thought Experiment allows for everyone, regardless of academic background, to confirm for themselves if the universe is indeed absolutely deterministic by providing a transparent resolution to this impasse. Since the only reliable source of this topic is Nature itself, viewpoints cannot be used to supersede its precedence.

Undue weight of biased viewpoints on this topic has historically been defensively maintained by its editors. No one individual is entitled to their own facts, myself included. However, when presented with the opportunity to support their opinions by conducting the thought experiment in real life and settle this issue once and for all they openly failed to do so. Instead, they choose to censor the thought experiment in its entirety which exposed the bias being practiced. Such disregard for objectivity and the lack of integrity demonstrated only serves to compromise Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral and free encyclopedia.

Since I am limited to 2000 characters, I am prohibited to present the Final Selection Thought Experiment being contested and request such limitation be lifted in order to do so. Prephysics (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer's note: I am neither taking this nor opening for discussion at this time, but I am seriously considering taking this case. There is no need to add more material in your opening statement. All of the participants have read the talk page, and the DRN volunteer who takes this case will study the article history and talk page discussion before taking the case. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TimothyRias

Prephysics (talk · contribs) insists on adding material to the article that is not properly supported by appropriate secondary sources. Repeated attempts at explaining Wikipedia policy of verifiability to him are simply met by him claiming that his arguments are above policy because they come directly from Nature. (Whatever that means.) TR 19:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Superdeterminism discussion

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

Volunteer's note: I am neither taking this nor opening for discussion, but merely noting that the notice to parties and discussion on the talk page seems to be adequate. Waiting for summary statements from all parties. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am accepting this dispute for moderated discussion. Please explain briefly what content issues are involved. It does appear that one editor has been repeatedly adding essentially the same material and other editors have been removing it, so can those who wish to keep the content explain why it is appropriate and those who wish to remove it explain why it is not appropriate. It isn't helpful in this context simply to say that the material is fringe, because it appears that superdeterminism is itself considered fringe by most scientists, and that articles on fringe subjects are appropriate and should describe the fringe content. Are there other policy reasons why the material is considered inappropriate?

I see that one editor recently proposed deletion of the article, and the article was not deleted. I will note that this noticeboard is not a place for discussing or rediscussing deletion. It is for discussion of what the content of an article should be, not whether the article should exist (have content). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. (There are other ways to discuss user conduct, and often resolving content disputes can mitigate conduct issues.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I intend to check on this discussion at least once every 24 hours, and I expect every editor to check on its content and make appropriate replies at least every 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The contested material is not supported by an secondary sources. Hence per WP:V it should not be included. The primary sources used to support the material are of an extremely questionable nature, being either self-published or in very shady journals (which you can essentially pay to publish your work without question). There is pretty much nothing further to it.TR 07:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Statements by editors

What a challenge is issued by the moderator! I take it up. No, 't Hooft and Morales are not two creators of two fringe theories. 't Hooft is well above the upper threshold of the fringe diapason; Morales is well below the lower threshold.

Gerard 't Hooft is a Nobel laureate in theoretical physics. His project is "an alternative theoretical formulation" (in the language of our policy), with a potential for shifting the paradigm. The author is highly professional, and surely understands how problematic is his project for now. A number of quite professional sources about this project are pointed out by Timothy Rias on the AfD discussion.

Now about Morales. He insists repeatedly that we should perform his "thought experiment", thus convincing ourselves that free will does not exist. I am sorry if I misrepresent his position here; I feel that I fail to understand him, this is just the problem. But I try. The thought experiment: imagine that you lose all possibilities to implement your will, and observe that you are effectively dead then. OK, even if we agree, what now? As for me, it looks like "2+2=4, therefore free will does not exist". For me, the words of Morales are not a wrong statement, nor a true statement, but something meaningless. Or am I too stupid? Maybe. Is there anyone (not Morales himself) able to explain me, in own words, the idea of Morales? Please do!

Being a mathematician, I nevertheless wrote a number of referee reports for physical journals. Sometimes I wrote "excellent", sometimes "reject emphatically". But I cannot imagine the text of Morales among the manuscripts sent to me for refereeing. Such texts are routinely rejected by editors as "not refereeable". What an irony: a published refereed article appears to be not refereeable! O tempora o mores!

Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

World Socialist_Web_Site

– New discussion.

Filed by 2602:306:CE4D:4B40:65FD:A9D9:814F:6F9C on 17:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• World Socialist Web Site (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ComradeScientist (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I tried to restore a longstanding part of the article that had been removed without discussion, at least until discussion had resolved itself. JustBerry undid my restoration of this part of the article, on the grounds that it was my restoration of a line that had been in the article for 8 years, rather than the removal that had just taken place without discussion, was less than neutral! I then modified the old line that had been removed such that it took into account the recent discussion, but JustBerry undid this as well, accusing me of not addressing the "issue," without specifically saying what the issue is.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No other steps

How do you think we can help?

Provide a neutral viewpoint

Summary of dispute by ComradeScientist

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

Talk:World Socialist_Web_Site discussion

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

•  Volunteer note: I am neither closing or opening this disscussion, but I am not entirely sure if this is a DRN. Or if it is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, requesting another volunteer. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 18:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52: Since the page editing history suggests a lengthy dispute, it would probably be best to make a conclusive decision of some sort through DRN volunteers in an attempt to achieve a higher level of resolution in this case. --JustBerry (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52: Also, the case is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The category of this issue would lie in the realm of undue weight, WP:NPOV, and the significance of the relationship between the source and the claim being made in the realm of potential systemic bias. As a note to other DRN volunteers, this is the basis of the CON argument against the edit, not my opinion, jurisdiction, or ultimate classification of the issue.

 Comment: The talk page discussion of this DRN report lies here. It should be noted that my role in the process was to iron out the disagreement between the two editors prior to making the addition of the content and remove any potential systemic bias via an anti-vandal effort. Since the issue had a few back and forths, it would be advisable for DRN volunteers to take a brief look through the page editing history. Although I am a volunteer at DRN and am not directly conflicted with the issue at hand, I will opt out of any further discussion to avoid any perceived unfairness for the remainder of the case. If need be, any volunteer should feel free to ping my name to call my attention to a question posed by a volunteer; however, I will not act as the ultimate arbitrator of fairness for this DRN case and give reigns of judgement to the rest of the Wikipedia community. --JustBerry (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer's note: I'm neither taking this nor opening it for discussion at this time, but it does appear to me that while there's been adequate talk page discussion to bring this to DRN, that notice hasn't been given to the responding party and that there may be others involved in the talk page discussion who haven't been listed here. It is the listing party's obligation to give notice to all other parties on their user talk pages, either using the notice template at the top of this page or using a custom message linking to this case, and to make sure all parties actively involved in the dispute are listed here and provided opening comment sections above. If notice is not given in 2 or 3 days, this listing will be closed as abandoned. Once notice has been given and all listed parties have made opening statements it would appear that it will then be ready for acceptance and we'll see if there's a volunteer interested in taking and opening this case. Whether or not there's been IDONTLIKEIT involved can be something that volunteer works through, if it is present. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@2602:306:CE4D:4B40:65FD:A9D9:814F:6F9C: Pinging listing party to place notice templates for advancement of the case on TransporterMan's comment. --JustBerry (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Chaunty Spillane

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2601:19B:4300:1A60:A4:AFC8:D8AF:C6EA on 05:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Chaunty Spillane (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SineBot9 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There was a malicious comment saying that the page needs to be destroyed and how inaccurate it is. Chaunty is a credited, very featured actor. An actor is an actor. There is no need to knit pick this page the way this one person was. I deleted it because it defames Chaunty's character as an artist and actor. She is SAG-AFTRA (Screen Actor's Guild) and the person maliciously attacking the page is malicious. They are clearly jealous and are not helping the maintaining of Wikipedia's accuracy on Chaunty Spillane. This page was obviously approved to be made for a reason. It is relevant. Please stop threatening to delete it and stop taking that malicious person's accusations and complaints seriously. They are just an internet troll. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Erased their comment How do you think we can help? Monitor the page better and keep it how it is. It does not sound like a commercial. It looks exactly like Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise's pages. Formatted correctly and unbiased. It doesn't say Chaunty is a great actor. It just says what she does and has done. Summary of dispute by SineBot9 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Chaunty Spillane discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:First Italo–Ethiopian War

– New discussion.

Filed by Mulugheta alula roma on 13:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:First Italo–Ethiopian War (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mulugheta alula roma (talk · contribs)
• Bgwhite (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I ask help on the item First Italo-Ethiopian War, I tried to have an agreement but we have not understood.

Now I added a photo of Wikimedia Commons relevant to the item

File:Two Italian soldiers survivors.jpg

Two Italian soldiers survivors

and I have added not troop to specify the not involvement of a Russian army in this war.

Talk:First Italo–Ethiopian War

only these two things.

Mr. Bgwhite continues to delete my added.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

have the possibility of adding a photo and specify the not-involvement of the Russian army in this war ”not troop“.

How do you think we can help?

reach an agreement.

Summary of dispute by Bgwhite

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

Talk:First Italo–Ethiopian War discussion

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

• Note--I think this was sent on to DR a bit too quickly; there's not even discussion on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Are you sure? 'cause I can find some here (No comments on the extensiveness). Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I see considerable recent discussion on the article talk page, about casualty numbers and about the inclusion of an image. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - However, the filing party has not notified the appropriate editors (one of whom is listed, and one of whom is not listed). The responsibility is on the filing party to notify the other editors of this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, Jaaron95, I found that too (after I left the note here and on ANI), but I think the problem is that the editor just doesn't understand the problem. Bgwhite reverted the addition of the photo because it was part of the edit that claimed Russia didn't send any troops; it's not about the photo (that's only a few sentences of talk page discussion). I have just sharpened up the reference for the Russian support and added another. If y'all want to go on with this that's fine, but we have a pretty clear-cut case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• hi all,

The problem is simple to solve, we have established the arms sales and strategic advice on the part of Russia. ok

I asked to specify only (not troop) in the first sentence of the text and if the writing and difficult to understand you to show me how to add the no wrong.

My mother tongue is Italian.

then the addition of the picture that is relevant to the item.--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• thanks Drmies now alright.

if could add (not troop) and the picture and is perfect.--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)