Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 123 - Wikipedia

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:List of programmes broadcast by Zindagi TV#Sources and attribution (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Manoflogan (talk · contribs)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)
• Rockcommer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV is a simple list of all the programs that have been broadcast by Zindagi_(TV_channel). Each and every entry has a list of verifiable sources corroborating that a series was broadcast by the network and the duration of broadcast. An editor named TheRedPenOfDoom keeps getting into an edit war with me, constantly reverting edits on the grounds WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. This is in spite of the fact that I provide sources that are reliable, and can be corroborated by other sources. I believe that I have fulfilled the proof of burden, and have provided reliable sources, but TheRedPenOfDoom does not. Please take a look at TRPOD's latest revert of all of my changes here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV&type=revision&diff=679163964&oldid=679157423. See the talk link for my explanation of the references and why I think that they are reliable. Experienced editor User:Wikimandia got involved Talk:List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV#Regarding_notability_and_removing_future_programming and agreed with my opinions, even going so far to call TRPOD disruptive. User_talk:Wikimandia#Request_your_feedback_on_the_points_that_I_have_made also suggested that I report him to WP:ANI if he continues with his actions. But I don't want to do that, instead I have come here. After removing the references he finds unacceptable (he is the only one who does), he goes to delete all entries that have no source because he deleted all the references. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV&type=revision&diff=679170890&oldid=679169080. I want to be able to references that have proven to be correct, reliable and cross verified with other sources so that I may be able to add entries to the page without TheRedPenOfDoom reverting them.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to use the talk page Talk:List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV. I sought the advice of other experienced wikipedia editors on how to resolve the matter. TRPOD has been extremely rigid and will not hesitate to revert the edits, or lock the pages if some disagrees with his opinions. TRPOD has also been proven wrong on many occasions. A RFC about Future programs was triggered as a result of a heated discussion on Talk:List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV and because TRPOD kept getting into edit wars all over wikipedia. This is just one more example of his refusal to discuss any issues. You can view the RFC discussion here. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Heated_Disagreements_about_Future_Programming for example.

How do you think we can help?

I want you to judge if I have provided reliable, correct sources whose content can be verified upon cross-examination. I believe that they are, as they can be corroborated with other sources, be it primary, secondary or other. WP:PRIMARY advises that primary sources can be used as long as we don't interpret them. I use the primary sources to corroborate that a series was broadcast, the premier date, and duration of broadcast. I was in the process of adding additional references when TRPOD reverted my changes., citing crappy sources. They are facts, not at all susceptible to interpretation. All my sources are listed on the talk page Talk:List of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV#Sources_and_attribution. I believe that all sources provided by me are reliably published and verifiable upon challenge and cross-examination. Senior wiki admins/editors User:Cyphoidbomb and User:Wikimandia have not objected to provided references after I explained my rationale. TRPOD keeps getting into edit wars as he has done so in the past, to the extent of being topic banned.

(Update):As you are aware, User:Wikimandia recommended that I go to WP:ANI. That would be an extreme step. I don't wish to do that yet. I seek a neutral and an unbiased opinion because I think that an unbiased opinion is exactly what is required, before resorting to an extreme step of going to WP:ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoflogan (talk • contribs) 16:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

(Update): The IP address User:50.196.167.154 is me, ManOfLogan. I had issues submitting the dispute resolution with IE, where I was logged in. It triggered a pop up preventing me from submitting it. I used Firefox instead to request dispute resolution. I forgot to login on Firefox when submitting the dispute request. I apologize for my mistake. I would like to respond to TRPOD about his examples. I have never used IndianTelevision.com as a reference. He can verify that on the talk page himself. TRPOD challenged the authenticity of the information that I have provided. I provided proof with corroboration. He can verify that on the talk page. NewsTechCafe lists upcoming shows on their website. Their posts have proven to be correct upon challenge. Why should a reference not be accepted when it is proven to be correct upon challenge? I have provided proofs in support of the source article that do not violate any wikipedia rules. You don't criticize editors for using only TVGuide as a reference for he broadcast dates of Seinfeld episodes. Why should you not consider NewstechCafe as a proof when the information has proven to be correct upon challenge?Manoflogan (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TheRedPenOfDoom

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

If third party intervention is what it takes to make Manoflogan understand what reliable sources are and that reliable sources do not include things like http://www.newstechcafe.com/2015/08/feriha-zindagi-tv-upcoming-show-wiki.html?m=1 some guy's blog and http://www.indiantelevision.com/about-us PR firms , then I am in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV#Sources_and_attribution discussion

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

Volunteer's note: I'm neither taking nor opening this for discussion, but only noting that notice and discussion are adequate. Waiting for TRPoD to indicate whether nor not he will participate and to give a summary if he chooses to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

One more thing, I note that in this edit Manoflogan threatens to take TRPoD to dispute resolution. I don't suppose that I have a problem per se with that, but it causes me to be concerned that Manoflogan may have a false expectation about what dispute resolution does and can do. First, it's not much of a threat since participation in moderated content dispute resolution here at DRN or at MEDCOM is always voluntary and no one is ever required to participate in dispute resolution. If TRPoD chooses not to participate, this case will be closed. Second, the primary purpose of moderated content dispute resolution is to facilitate discussion between the parties and dispute resolution does not make binding judgments or decisions involving article content. Volunteers here may or may not choose to offer an opinion about some content matter, but such opinions are not binding: they're just an opinion from a neutral, unbiased party. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am accepting this case for voluntary moderated discussion. I will remind all of the parties to be civil and concise and to comment on content, not on contributors. While this appears to be a dispute about the validity of sources, I would like all of the parties to explain below what they think that the issues are. I would also like to know whether User:50.196.167.154, who filed this case, is User:Manoflogan, editing logged out, so that I know whether we have two parties or three. If three, please make separate statements. If there are two parties to this case, please do not edit logged out as an IP address. Please make your statements in the section below. Please do not engage in threaded discussion. Please make your statements to the moderator, not to the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read the policy on reliable sources and the policy on verifiability. Even if this is not a sourcing dispute, as it appears to be, those are still important policies. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I will check on the status of this case at least once every 24 hours. I expect every participant to check on its status at least every 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

First statements by editors

My edits have been attempts to bring the article into compliance with policies such as WP:NPOV / WP:V / WP:NOTADVERT / WP:RS.

has apparently taken affront at that effort in part it appears because they do not adequately understand WP:RS and that merely pointing to some website doesn't satisfy the WP:BURDEN that before content is restored to an article, a reliable citation must be provided with the content.

I will take responsibility for not explaining in detail why each of the sources is not acceptable, however previous interactions with <redacted> have given me the impression that xe is not very interested in listening to anything that I have to say. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to his opinion, I have taken the effort to make sure that I understand the Wikipedia rules. I have tried to explain to him my position on the talk page. His contention is that the source I have provided violates WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERT. That could not be more false. I have provided the explanations and rationale as to why the sources comply with all of the above rules and requirements on the talk page. The purpose of the sources is to confirm that
                1. the show is/was being broadcast on Zindagi_(TV_channel) and
                2. the premier date of the broadcast and the duration.

That is the only purpose for the provided sources. I have provided sources that comply with WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOCIALNETWORK, in addition to complying with the requirements of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTADVERT and WP:NPOV. I believe that I have provided proof that fulfills all the requirements of WP:BURDEN. This can be confirmed from the talk page. I would like to point out that reliable is not the same as correct or error-free. I have provided sources that are reputable, and most importantly correct in accordance to rules and requirements of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERT.

He has stated that I have taken affront because he thinks that I don't understand WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVERT, WP:RS and WP:V. On the contrary, I understand the requirements for conforming to all of the cited requirements very well. I have made the effort to explain the reasons and provided the sources that not only conform to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERT, but also WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOCIALNETWORK. You can see the evidence on the talk page. I take affront because he deletes entries on the wiki page that have comply with the requirements that he has cited, but also additional requirements as well. I take affront because he has been getting into edit wars on this wiki page and other pages by rigidly sticking to the position that have proven to be wrong in the past. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Heated_Disagreements_about_Future_Programming is an evidence of that. He has been the only editor that thinks that the sources I have provided are, to use his words, crappy. I have also never provided http://www.indiantelevision.com as a reliable source for any of the entries that I disagree with him on. This can be confirmed on the talk page. He has not even gotten his facts correct in this instance. I take affront at that. Manoflogan (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

Comment on content, not on contributors. The repeated references to "take affront" are not useful.

Please provide a list of the sources about which there is controversy, and why the sources are acceptable, and why the sources are not acceptable. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

As I have mentioned before List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV is a list of programs that are being broadcast, or have been previously broadcast or to be broadcast by Zindagi_(TV_Channel). There is no other content. The issue was taken by the inclusion of the following entries to the wiki page. I will show that the information listed on the wiki page is correct, cited with reliable sources that fulfill the requirements of WP:BURDEN. The following URLs give you the list of shows that being broadcast right now.

• http://www.zindagitv.in/shows for the list of shows that are being broadcast right now with days and times of broadcast.
• http://www.zindagitv.in/schedule for the programs that are going to be on air right now

The intention is to prove with the provided sources that

• Noor Bano

  I have provided proof from third party, primary sources and social media that Noor Bano started broadcast on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) on August 19, 2015 and is currently being broadcast.

• Saare Mausam Tumse Hee

  I have provided proof from third party, primary sources and social media posts Saare Mausam Tumse Hee started broadcast on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) on April 5, 2015 and is currently being broadcast on Zindagi

• Naturally delicious

  This show is not being currently broadcast and can be seen in a the list of Archived Shows on http://www.zindagitv.in/shows

• Rehaai

  I have provided proof from third party, primary sources and social media networks that Rehaai premiered on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) on August 13, 2015.

• Ruswaiyaan

  I have provided proof from third party, primary sources and social media that Ruswaiyaan premiered on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) on June 11, 2015.

• Sabki Ladli Laraib

 I have provided proof from third party, primary sources and social media sources that Sabki Ladli Laraib premiered on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) on May 4, 2015.

• Ye Sasural Bemisaal

 I have provided proof from third party, primary sources and social media sources that Ye Sasural Bemisaal premiered on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) on April 5, 2015.

• Yeh Phool Sa Nazook Chehra

 I have provided proof that Yeh Phool Sa Nazook Chehra premiered on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) on January 11, 2015
 

• Feriha (Upcoming program as of September 6, 2015)

 I have provided proof that Feriha is going premiere on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) on September 15, 2015

• Tanhai

   I have provided proof that Tanhai premiered on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) on August 17, 2015

I have used a combination of third party, primary and secondary sources wherever applicable. I have been diligent in making sure that I have fulfilled the requirements of WP:RS, WP:V, [WP:NOTADVERT]] and WP:NPOV. I have also fulfilled the requirements of WP:PRIMARY. The WP:PRIMARY states that (emphasis mine) unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. We are NOT interpreting any information from any primary source in our references. We are using the primary source to prove that the series was premiered on a particular date on Zindagi. Therefore any usage of primary source is valid in this case.

WP:SOCIALNETWORK states that (emphasis mine) Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

We use the social network posts to corroborate that a show will premier or has premiered on a particular date. The references do not make any other claim. Zindagi is not at all associated with this page, so this does not violate the unduly self-serving rule.

• it does not involve claims about third parties;

This page is about a list of programs broadcast by Zindagi_(TV_Channel). We are not making claims about any other network or website.

• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

Same principle applies. We are using the social media posts to verify that the show premiered on a particular date on Zindagi_(TV_Channel). This is directly connected to source. We are not violating this principle.

• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

The social media posts can be corroborated with third party, primary sources and broadcast schedule. You can verify that a particular show premiered on a specific date on Zindagi_(TV_Channel) using a combination of other sources.

• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The article is not based primarily on these sources. Some entries require corroboration from social media posts. Majority of the entries are sourced from reputable third party sources or primary sources. I want to reiterate the following points:

• All of my sources are attributable. Upon challenge, I can prove it that the series were broadcast on Zee Zindagi using a combination of third party, primary and secondary sources. Experienced wiki editor Wikimandia had this to say to other party in this dispute.

Additionally primary sources can be used for information like television. Not to establish notability for a subject, but for various details. There is nothing wrong with that source for the TV show. This is not a BLP. You are being disruptive by removing it.

Manoflogan (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Response by TRPoD

Attempting to be concise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Not acceptable on the basis of meeting the basic reliable source criteria of having a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight:

• www.cinekhabar.in They have no masthead nor other information about their editorial staff or policies and given that they have specific pages posting the copyright lyrics http://www.cinekhabar.in/category/pakistani-serial-song-lyrics/ and copyright image wallpapers http://www.cinekhabar.in/category/wallpaper/bollywood-wallpaper/ would fall into the WP:ELNEVER category.
• http://www.newstechcafe.com/2015/08/rehaai-zindagi-tv-upcoming-show-wiki.html as indicated in the intro text on every page is some guy's blog, not a reliable source.
• http://www.droutinelife.com/about-us/ again, just some guys web page, no evidence of any journalistic background or standards, and the focus on presentation of copyright lyrics is again WP:ELNEVER status.
• http://www.uniarticles.com/p/about-us.html is again, just some guy's website with no evidence of journalist experience - his background is a B Tech nor editorial board.

Generally meeting the reliable sources criteria: Times of India and official Zindagi pages. However, just having a source that meets WP:RS does not mean that there are not other reasons why the content is inappropriate and should be removed Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that covers all of the sources presented above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

It appears that there is another editor currently involved in this dispute, whom I have added. Editors: Please do not edit the article until this controversy is resolved. Discussion can be done here. Also, please keep the discussion centered here, at this noticeboard, rather than at the talk page, as long as this discussion is continuing here, so as to keep it centralized. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is true that reliable sourcing does not guarantee inclusion, but, since this article is a list, I would think that all of the reliably sourced entries should be included. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I see that one editor did reply to the question that I had originally asked, which was for a list of sources. The other editor provided a list of programs, which is better than nothing, but the list was too long, difficult to read. (I did read it anyway.) Now that reliable and unreliable sources have been discussed, I would like each editor to identity any programs that either should be removed, e.g., because there are only reruns or were not properly sourced, or that should be added, e.g., because they were original programming and are properly sourced. ~~

It appears that we have an article scope question as well as a sourcing question. The Times of India is a reliable source as to whether a program was broadcast or rebroadcast on Zindagi. However, the issue about at least one program appears to be that the Times of India reports that it was rebroadcast on Zindagi, but the question is whether this should be list of programs that were originally broadcast on Zindagi, or also a list of programs that were rebroadcast? Is that one of the issues? If so, we have two questions, reliability of sources (the Times or the social media), and the scope of the list article in the first place. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Third round of statements byTRPoD

Third round statement part 1: To Robert McClenon re my comment on Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion . That was reflecting my position that even though a reliable source such as Times of India says that a program is being rebroadcast on a station, that does not mean that the rebroadcast is relevant to the subject of the article and should be included. (content re what meets/does not meet to be provided in a few hours) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Third round of statements by editors

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

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.

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.

• No. Mean as custard (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Location of dispute

• Self-directed IRA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mean as Custard (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am an expert on the topic on this page. I have been monitoring it for vandalism and promotional spamming. I have been successful until now. The other editor ( Mean as Custard) has resorted to a reversion war. he has not been open to discussion at all. He just removes a vast majority of the edits without reason. Since I am an expert on this topic I know many of the references and these people are also industry experts and have referenced a number of important information topics on this page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

tried to reach out with no response.

How do you think we can help?

While I am open to discussion about how to make this page better, other editor seems more interested in vandalizing the page.

Summary of dispute by Mean as Custard

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

self-directed IRA discussion

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

Response:

I have not been notified of this complaint but came across it by chance. . .

Material removed consisted of refspam. This refers to promotional links masquerading as references, designed to attract traffic to commercial websites. The references I removed were to commercial investment companies chiefly consisting of material written by senior partners of those companies, notably Adam Bergman, senior tax partner at the IRA Financial Group, and Bill Humphrey, Co-founder and CEO of New Direction IRA.

• IRA Financial Group: "The Mission of IRA Financial Group is: to create exceptional value for our customers by harmoniously blending professionalism; quality and efficiency; to deliver highly customized client services at an affordable price; to adhere to the highest ethical standards; to exceed our clients’ expectations."
• New Direction IRA: "New Direction IRA is a trusted provider of investor education as well as custodial and administrative services* for retirement accounts and HSAs. We enable individual investors to take control of their tax advantaged accounts using alternative asset opportunities that are ideally suited to each investor’s goals and investment style. Investors, advisors and asset providers choose New Direction IRA because of our depth of experience in asset acquisition, specialized education offerings and proven track record of reliable transaction funding and thorough asset documentation."

I take exception to being accused of vandalism and promotional spamming. Mean as custard (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 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)

Drmies should write only on this page otherwise you would not understand anything.

it was found that Russia has sold weapons and military strategy

but he has not fought materially in this war--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

in this war there not was the Russian army this must be specified in item--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is the best form for this item First Italo-Ethiopian War--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• No, Talk:First Italo–Ethiopian War is. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• The participation of Nikolay Leontiev with the volunteers was insignificant

I'm not jokes but you yes, understand from this statement pornographic films, water turbines, fur coats

I'm adds news without hiding the truth to the reader wikipedia

I added that there was no involvement in this war RUSSlAN ARMY

I have repeated this many times

I opened a page for the resolution of the dispute and it is them that we must discuss--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator's note: I've notified Bgwhite. There has not been sufficient discussion about the image issue for it to be brought here, so if a DRN volunteer takes this case I'm going to ask them not to address that issue. Frankly, it needs someone fluent in both Italian and in Wikipedia policy and procedure to properly address the issue about the non-involvement of Russian troops with the filing party to see if there's just a misunderstanding here, due to language difficulties, or a real dispute. Are there any volunteers who are fluent in Italian? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies for stepping in. Language is not the issue. They have the same problems on the Italian Wikipedia. They have been blocked for adding information not in sources and a two month block just expired for personal attacks and sock puppeting. They have been warned about POV and adding material in a non-encyclopedic tone. It also appears Italian is not their native language.

As Drmies is the historian, I'll defer to him on any changes that need to be made. Bgwhite (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm only a historian of misery. If we can't get the editor to agree that "not troops" isn't necessary to add, esp. since the military assistance is to some extent specified (yes rifles, yes sabres, no troops mentioned), then you can get all the linguists in the world together but we'll get nowhere, and the question becomes why this editor is so interested in this point being made explicitly--but that's not a question for Wikipedians. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• hi all,

my tongue is Italian and I speak perfectly.

the shape of the text alright so even if it is not well specified the not-participation of a Russian army but accept it , ok.

Drmies the arrangement of the images are arranged so bad, why put them in a row.--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is the perfect shape for this items First Italo-Ethiopian War

I believe it could be closed this discuss

Greetings to all.--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Sam Houser#Sam.27s Nationality. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kandyce2013 (talk · contribs)
• General Ization (talk · contribs)
• Primefac (talk · contribs)
• Myself (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Sam Houser's Nationality. Although Sam was born, raised, educated and lived in Britain for 36yrs. He then moved to the US and became an American citizen. He also still resides in Britain. The article currently says that he is an American citizen, as there is 1 source that says he moved to America. However, when a British citizen becomes an American citizen, they also get to keep their British citizenship as although naturalizing citizens are required to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances, the oath has never been enforced to require the actual termination of original citizenship. British actress Emily Blunt recently became an American citizen and said this "“I became an American citizen recently - “The thing that’s weird is I do get to keep both my British citizenship and this, but you have to renounce her (The Queen)." So that would make them British Americans?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Adding extra information that may shed some light on the subject.

How do you think we can help?

By taking a look and reaching an unbiased, factual solution.

Summary of dispute by Kandyce2013

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

Summary of dispute by General Ization

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

Summary of dispute by Primefac

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

Summary of dispute by Myself

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

Talk:Sam Houser#Sam.27s_Nationality. discussion

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Users involved

• Tsirel (talk · contribs)
• Prephysics (talk · contribs)
• TimothyRias (talk · contribs)
• Headbomb (talk · contribs)

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)

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)

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)

• Moderator questions - The primary issue appears to be the insertion of a proposed experiment. The experiment is intended either to prove the existence of free will and thus invalidate superdeterminism or to disprove the existence of free will, so that superdeterminism may be a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics. Is the experiment intended to prove free will, or to prove its non-existence? If it can't do either, then isn't it not even wrong? (Is that the same as "not refereeable"?) However, the proposed experiment appears to be self-published. Is the experiment self-published? In that case, is it verifiable at all? Please provide reliable sources that have discussed the experiment. Otherwise, its inclusion does not appear to be consistent with Wikipedia policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Moderator questions - I see discussion above about Gerard 't Hooft, but I don't see any mention either in the article in question or in his BLP about his theoretical work on superdeterminism. If he has addressed it in the form of an alternative theoretical formulation (and he is a distinguished theorist), then his paper should be referenced if he is to be mentioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The first question is probably addressed to "Prephysics". On the second question:

(a) see Gerard 't Hooft#Fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics; true, the word "superdeterminism" does not occur there, but see the AfD discussion; a quote therefrom:

"Comment. Well, looking in "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" by 't Hooft I see the word "superdeterminism" once in the abstract and then 1+3 times in Sect. 14.3 "Superdeterminism and Conspiracy" starting with:

"Superdeterminism may be defined to imply that not only all physical phenomena are declared to be direct consequences of physical laws that do not leave anything anywhere to chance (which we refer to as ‘determinism’), but it also emphasises that the observers themselves behave in accordance with the same laws. They also cannot perform any whimsical act without any cause in the near past as well as in the distant past. By itself, this statement is so obvious that little discussion would be required to justify it, but what makes it more special is that it makes a difference."

(b) See Talk:Superdeterminism#'t_Hooft's_views.

Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by moderator

Editor User:Prephysics has proposed the inclusion of a lengthy Final Selection Thought Experiment. Is there a published reliable source for the experiment, in which case a concise summary of the experiment can be included in Wikipedia with a reference to the long experiment? If the experiment is self-published, then it does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If the experiment has been described in reliable secondary sources and can be included in Wikipedia, then the description of the experiment should also state whether it is intended to prove the existence of free will, and thus disprove hard determinism and discredit superdeterminism, or whether it is intended to disprove free will, and thus prove hard determinism, which is consistent with quantum superdeterminism. As it is, while the description of the experiment is long, it isn't clear to the moderator what the experiment is intended to prove or disprove (let alone that it has been published). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• One more moderator request - Please refrain from editing the article in question while dispute resolution is in progress, since moderated dispute resolution is intended to avoid edit-warring. Also, please discuss issues about article content here, on this noticeboard, rather than on the article talk page, while dispute resolution is in progress, so that this can be a centralized location for those discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Statements by editors

No, the experiment has not been described in secondary sources (reliable or otherwise). It has only been described in the original work of Morales, which is mostly self-published or appears in journals of a very questionable nature.TR 16:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a double standard being applied to "superdeterminism". Historically, it has been based on conjecture (philosophy) which mistakenly uses ambiguity to describe something that is unambiguous which of course is illogical. In keeping with Wikipedia's core principle of content being verifiable and of neutrality, I have included the Final Selection Thought Experiment in order for all to verify on their own terms if Nature is or is not absolutely deterministic. To my knowledge, not a single editor has conducted the thought experiment in real life in order to justify repeated deletions of the unequivocal validation of superdeterminism. Instead, they have chosen to initiate and continue an editing war by blocking me and threats of continued blockage in order to prevent me from attempting to provide accurate information that they themselves have outright refused to contest.

Regarding the Final Selection Thought Experiment being previously published, it first appeared in the last paragraph of an essay entitled, "Spin States of Selection: Predetermined Variables of ‘bit’" on June 18, 2013. I submitted the article in the 2013 FQXi essay competition which consisted of 182 entries. Each entrant was encouraged to review each other's work. I found it an honor to have my work be openly reviewed by those from the international science community, some of which are in the top of their fields. My article was ranked 3rd by the peer group and 1st by the public:

Article: http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Morales_mmorales_variables.pdf
Ranking: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31419?sort=community

As far as my credentials on this topic, no one has conducted an experiment to validate or falsify without ambiguity John S Bell's loophole except for myself. Due to my research, I have been invited to referee several physics journals and continuously are being sent manuscripts for review. That being said, what I have found is that opinions, including my own, are irrelevant when it comes to absolute determinism. Only Nature has the final say since it is the source and only means of verification on this topic, hence, the Final Selection Thought Experiment.

As it currently stands, "Superdeterminism" has been reverted via editorial censorship to violate Wikipedia's mandate, "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

Prephysics (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Moderator comment - The above post, as well as part of the collapsed extended post, appears to misread the verifiability policy, as well as other core policies, but I will restate the policy and ask a few questions. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable means that a reader must be able to verify (check) that content has previously been published in reliable sources, preferably reliable secondary sources (since Wikipedia is a tertiary source). It does not mean that an editor can use Wikipedia to ask its readers to verify an assertion by conducting an experiment. Any experiment that is cited must have already been published. Has the result of the experiment been published? If so, what is its result? If the result of the experiment has not been published, but the challenge to conduct the experiment has been published, where has that been done, and what is a concise summary of the experiment, and how it purports to prove or disprove free will. Also, if the editor is Michael Morales, then any effort to use Wikipedia to publish this argument appears to be original research as well as raising conflict of interest issues. Also, the editor's arguments about "Nature" appear to be asserting that the editor's interpretation of Truth trumps Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable means that a reader must be able to verify (check) that content has previously been published in reliable sources, preferably reliable secondary sources (since Wikipedia is a tertiary source).

• Moderator comment - I will have to close this thread as failed if User:Prephysics doesn't address concerns about verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems, we (the moderator and me; and maybe some others) would like to "perform in real life your thought experiment" (though I wonder, will it then be "thought" or "real"); the only problem is that you do not answer the questions (asked above by the moderator), what the experiment really is, and how to interpret its results. As I wrote above, for now it looks for me somewhat like "2+2=4, therefore free will does not exist". Instead of answering moderator's questions, you just copied hereto a text that we already saw a lot of times and are still unable to understand. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Plain and simple, this is a single purpose account (quite likely Morales himself) trying to push his dubious nonscience crap via Wikilawyering. I disagree that superdeterminism needs its own article, but if we're to have one on it, we should stick to what reputable sources and reputable physicists/philosophers say about it. In the words of Pauli, this is 'not even wrong'. Topic ban / block the troll (or someone who's effectively indistinguishable from one) as WP:NOTHERE/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or whatever, and let's stop wasting time on this. This is time cube level of nonsense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Moderator Bias

I find it most unfortunate that the moderator has chosen sides in lieu of reality. Wikipedia's mandate, "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." is quite clear. Since the topic is about superdeterminism serving as a loophole to refute John S Bell's theorem, only Nature can serve as the reliable authoritative source and only Nature can be used for verification, hence, the Final Selection Thought Experiment. I move to escalate this dispute to a higher unbiased authority.

I regret that User:Prephysics thinks that I am choosing a "side" in lieu of "reality" by applying Wikipedia policy. As far as I can tell, the editor's opinion on the Final Selection Thought Experiment is just that, an interpretation or opinion, but I may be too embedded in Wikipedia policy. I am withdrawing from this case as moderator and am marking it as needing attention. If another volunteer wishes to take over as moderator, they may do so. Otherwise I recommend that this case be closed by another volunteer. User:Prephysics wishes to "escalate this dispute to a higher unbiased authority". Within Wikipedia, higher levels of dispute resolution are requests for formal mediation or a Request for Comments. I note that formal mediation is voluntary, and that RFC is the only binding higher level of content dispute resolution. As to using "Nature" as a "higher unbiased authority", science consists of the investigation and interpretation of Nature, and Wikipedia is looking for published reliable authoritative sources reporting on that investigation and interpretation, not on original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. As for me, the case is now clear: "Prephysics" insists repeatedly that everyone has to perform his "experiment" himself, thus convincing himself that the position of "Prephysics" is The Absolute Truth (above all policies); and at the same time he repeatedly refuses to clarify, how to perform this "experiment", and how to interpret the results. (Probably Robert McClenon would put this message into a box, since it is about behavior; but he is no more the moderator... well, I do not mind if the new moderator will do the same. Anyway, I think, there is nothing more to moderate here.) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Hosur#Hosur and Telugu language (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Vensatry (talk · contribs)
• FriendRahul (talk · contribs)
• SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have seen here , on 'Hosur ' article a lot of dispute going on languages. In 'hosur' article demographics, FriendRahul has added relevant content with proper citations. But the Admin /other users influenced by Tamil language community are continously reverting his data. Also, no proper reasons being given to him. In short, FriendRahul claim 'Telugu' is majorly spoken language Users like 'SpacemanSpiff' claim Tamil is majorly spoken language. I can see user 'Vensatry' replying to 'FriendRahul'as below

" . The population of Hosur in 2001 was 84,394. The break up is as follows – Tamil (45,237), Telugu (21,943), Urdu (7,813) and Kannada (6,158). It's fairly evident that the Telugu population is not even half of Tamil. The 2011 data is yet to be released. But then, it's very unlikely that the Telugu population has grown to such an extent that it constitutes about 40-50% in 2011. The source lies "

But the fact is the sources e attached is routing to census website of govt of india. And no where these figures of breakup is mentioned in the website. If he is genuine please ask him to show the exact page where there figures are mentioned. Also, even accoding to their data(irrespective of true/false), 'malayalam' is no where found in count except very few speakers. But in article, they mentioned as below. "along with significant population using Telugu or Malayalam as mother tongue" Also, they reverted the data source of wikitravel cited by FriendRahul. They blocked the user. Please do the needful else this issue being related to a majority community in hosur, it will hurt their sentiments and could lead to complaining on this data . There are other disputes by other users on this article over the same topic 'telugu language'

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have observed many users fighting on this article with same language topic

How do you think we can help?

cross check proper citations and also wikitravel website. resolve this dispute. No data supports the current content. Please ask the reverting people to show exact page where their claim is genuine on census of india website. if they are unable to show it please block their rights for misusing

Summary of dispute by Vensatry

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

Firstly, there are no reliable sources brought up by the user in question. The source which I had quoted at the talk page is available as a downloadable file (Excel). Lastly, the user has been indef. blocked, so we shouldn't encourage sockpupptery as SpacemanSpiff says. Thanks, —Vensatry _(ping) 12:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by FriendRahul

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

Summary of dispute by SpacemanSpiff

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

• This isn't for DRN, no reliable sources have been brought by the filing party -- I have no problem at all with adding the content if it's reliably sourced but I've shown why these sources aren't proper for it, but from the talk page it looks like Vensatry has sources directly contradicting what the filer has to say. Also, the filer has been blocked indefinitely per WP:NLT, so we shouldn't be encouraging sockpuppetry here. Thanks for the notification Dr Crazy 102. —SpacemanSpiff 11:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hosur#Hosur and_Telugu_language discussion

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

  Notified editors related to discussion (and not currently blocked) of DRN discussion being opened. FriendRahul has not been notified due to an indef block. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - While there has been discussion on the talk page, it has not been extensive (and some of that discussion was by an editor who has been indefinitely blocked). I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but am suggesting that it be declined until there is more discussion on the talk page. If discussions continue and do not resolve the issue, refiling is permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer reply - Agreed, there have been six or so individual comments made by the editors listed, 3 by FriendRahul ^(indef.), 2 by Spaceman and one by Vensatry (roughly). Not enough to be called "extensive" by most editors IMO, though it is a start. I will close tomorrow with that reasoning unless any of the involved editors, or other volunteers, have objections. Thanks, Drcrazy102 (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  Verified - All parties have filed summaries. Thanks, Drcrazy102 (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

• ru:Обсуждение (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• OneLittleMouse (talk · contribs)
• MarkYabloko (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I need help dealing with an abusive user OneLittleMouse (that's not me calling him names, that's his real user name) who has been indiscriminately deleting my articles and bullying me with inappropriate warnings. He deleted some of my articles mere seconds after I posted them! So obviously he is NOT reviewing them but rather blankly and blatantly deleting them. One article I posted had the very bare minimum of words and a hangon request yet still he deleted it immediately!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Stop deleting my articles!

How do you think we can help?

Stop him!

Summary of dispute by OneLittleMouse

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

Summary of dispute by MarkYabloko

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

Summary of dispute by

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

:w:ru:Обсуждение|Обсуждение

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:List of state leaders in 1947#French Co-prince of Andorra (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mathglot (talk · contribs)
• Zoltan_Bukovszky (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Zoltan_Bukovszky claims that Léon Blum held the title of French Co-Prince of Andorra, as listed at Léon_Blum, List_of_state_leaders_in_1947, and elsewhere. I dispute this, and demand removal of this claim from the articles, or else provision of a Reliable Source supporting it.

In the case of the Léon_Blum article, we must neither claim he held the title, nor list him in Category:Jewish Monarchs. Nor should his name appear in the article List_of_state_leaders_in_1947.

I've been reverted twice but I stopped short of 3RR. There has been limited discussion on ZB's User talk page which shifted to an article Talk page, but ZB seems to have given up the discussion and not commented in a while. This is where things stand now.

In his argument, ZB claims that a source (rulers.org) and others support Blum-as-CoPrince, based on ZB's belief that "all French heads of state are Co-Prince of Andorra ex officio", therefore so was Blum. I disagree because: 1. none of ZB's sources outright claim Blum was Co-Prince; one has to deduce it by drawing a logical conclusion based on several claims in different portions of the source which I view as WP:SYNTH 2. Rulers.org and ZB's other two sources are not WP:RS. They appear to be labors of love by devoted amateurs who self-publish impressively long works but have no notoriety as historians. 3. The Andorran site www.coprince-fr.ad/ca/coprinceps-francesos appears official, and does not list Blum in their list of French Co-Princes from 1265 to the present. I consider this definitive.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

1. Posted at User Talk:Zoltan_Bukovszky (no response there) 2. Added ^{[dubious – discuss]} to article section claiming Blum was Co-Prince, linked it to Talk page 3. Replied to Zoltan at Talk:List of state leaders in 1947#French_Co-prince_of_Andorra, which was started by ZB. Wrote several replies with more info each time, never heard back. 4. Searched the Andorran ccTLD (.ad) hunting for "official" looking pages, came up with www.coprince-fr.ad/ca/coprinceps-francesos which doesn't list Blum

How do you think we can help?

In a nutshell, I'd like 3rd party opinions on the dispute so we can either continue sans Zoltan to a natural conclusion, or else declare it over and the challenge upheld. We cannot force an editor to engage in a discussion if they do not wish to, but it still may be that my view is incorrect and perhaps other editors might agree with ZB's views and further his PoV. So I'm looking for editors to engage on ZB's behalf, or else agree that it's over, and we can remove Blum's name from the list.

Summary of dispute by Zoltan_Bukovszky

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

Talk:List of_state_leaders_in_1947#French_Co-prince_of_Andorra 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.

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:Dash (cryptocurrency)#Forum post as reference (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Raze182 (talk · contribs)
• 75.93.11.94 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On the Dash (cryptocurrency) page, anonymous users from forums and blogs are used as sources for information in the last part of the History section. This appears to violate the rules against using self-published sources. The language of the edits also use poor grammar, spelling, and weasel words. I've tried adding templates indicating such until suitable sources can be found, and attempted to direct the discussion to the Talk page. The editor repeatedly removes my edits and/or replaces them with another questionable source and does not respond to discussions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion was requested; no response. Third opinion was then requested (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dash_.28cryptocurrency.29). Consensus was that sources used do not meet Wikipedia guidelines.

How do you think we can help?

Some sort of formal arbitration is likely needed to avoid edit warring since the editor in question seems uncooperative and refuses to engage in discussion.

Summary of dispute by 75.93.11.94

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

Talk:Dash (cryptocurrency)#Forum_post_as_reference 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.

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

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dr. James Schultz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I wrote an article about Shielding Lotions and immediately it was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was "promotional" and "not notable". Apparently there was a previous article by the same name that had been deleted for those reasons. In any event, after I addressed these criticisms, a new criticism arose, that the article was an attempt at neologism. I showed that the terminology had been in use since the 60's as a classification of lotions. After this I was accused of being a paid writer. I assure you I am not.

The main critic in this whole slew of criticisms has been QuackGuru. He has persisted in attacking everything about this article in an aggressive and combative nature. After the article was merged with Barrier Cream, I began adding citations and QuackGuru followed me there to tag my citations and argue on the article's talk page.

I don't know what his problem is or why he's so OCD about this but it's getting frustrating. I am trying to make positive contributions and he's making it extremely difficult for me to do.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to resolve it with him and have also expressed my concerns to others involved in the discussions. In fact, one editor suggested that he back off and stop being combative.

How do you think we can help?

I honestly don't know. I just want to be able to contribute here without having everything I add attacked. I happen to be a dermatopathologist with over 15 years professional experience and I believe I could be an asset here. But this current problem is making it extremely difficult.

Summary of dispute by

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Medicine discussion

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

• Template talk:Caliphate (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Peaceworld111 (talk · contribs)
• Khestwol (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'll try to make this as short as possible. Relevant sections for the dispute are Template_talk:Caliphate#Spiritual caliphates;Template_talk:Caliphate#New template and Template_talk:Caliphate#Content disupte;User talk:Peaceworld111#July 2015. This version Khestwol wants to keep; and this is my last edited version. This dispute runs over many months and the only active disputant to my edit is perhaps Khestwol. The real difference between my version and that of Khestwol's is that I have added more caliphates and related features of caliphates. In a number of edit summaries, Khestwol appears to have an issue with "major changes", as apparently no consensus has been established. However, from what I understand, the only issue Khestwol has is with the addition of the "Ahmadiyya Caliphate". I say this because, Khestwol doesn't really have any issue with major changes, as he/she explicitly states in User talk:Peaceworld111#July 2015 that "I will be happy if you not again add ISIL, and also the Ahmadiyya Caliphate for that matter". When requested to give a reason, he/she wouldn't give any, with the exception that 'there has been no consensus' to add it, as seen in edit summaries/multiple comments. (Note that Khestwol also disputes the addition of "ISIL claim", but I didn't add that, so let's ignore that for the moment).

Perhaps I should try to place some context. Ahmadiyya is an Islamic denomination, often persecuted and considered "non-Islamic" by some orthodox sects, which incidentally has an (spiritual) caliphate. As an experienced editor on Ahmadiyya related pages, I have often encountered editors (including relatively experienced editors), who have attempted to establish in Wikipedia voice that it is a "non-Muslim sect", including through DRN.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

TP discussions

How do you think we can help?

Read/Discuss/add suggestions; although I think it's a simple case.

Summary of dispute by Khestwol

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

Template talk:Caliphate discussion

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

• Volunteer note - While there was discussion on the talk page more than a month ago, there has been no recent (within the past month) discussion. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but am recommending that it be declined without prejudice due to a lack of recent discussion, and that discussion resume on the talk page. If the discussion continues and is not conclusive, a new request for moderated discussion can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.