Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 133

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133Archive 134Archive 135→Archive 140

Talk:Transhumanist politics#Sources too closely associated with the subject

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

A few editors disagree about whether a specific template should appear at the top of the transhumanist politics page. The template says, "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral."

The supporters of this template say that the neutral point-of-view and verifiability policies are violated by the page, because some of its sources are primary sources, and the page purportedly gives a distorted perspective.

The opposing editors claim that the page does not violate policy on these grounds, because these policies explicitly allow primary sources, and there is no body of reliable sources that disagree with the perspective of the page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A lengthy discussion has taken place on the relevant Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

1) Please judge whether the neutrality or verifiability of the page has been compromised as claimed.

2) If it has been compromised, please point out the offending sources, along with quotes from guidelines or policy that say why.

3) If it has not been compromised, please judge whether the template should be removed.

Summary of dispute by Dsprc

(Late to the show; am traveling at the moment and a bit jetlagged so if I'm not clear please _do_ ask follow-ups; it may take some hours or up to a day for me to respond.)

The vast majority of the article relies entirely upon affiliated, primary and unreliable sources from a small subset of a fringe milieu which may not reflect mainstream positions or the reality of the subject.

Numerous efforts to resolve this problem through discussion have proven unfruitful as a great deal of objections and roadblocks are raised by Single Purpose Accounts, with a lot of "I didn't hear that" and cherry-picked wikilawyering. This is largely fallout from a rejected Transhumanist Party article where meatpuppets and SPAs then redirected their attention toward shoehorning that poorly sourced content elsewhere.

There is extensive discussion covering numerous issues and documentation on the article Talk page & archives as well as AFD and Draft of aforementioned failed article. (may have to consult WP:WAYBACK Machine)

The dispute over the tag is but a minute fraction of issues which plague this article. Tagging was done to encourage inclusion of higher-quality sources which present a more varied view from organizations and individuals not closely affiliated with the subject; and to alert readers and contributors to some issues with the article they could possibly help to resolve. -- dsprc [talk] 02:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Doncram

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoncram&type=revision&diff=703706040&oldid=700702628 I was notified of this DRN, and during the 4th round have again been requested to comment]. I was reluctant to participate because I see no way in hell for there to be any resolution in this forum. I appreciate the good will of the DRN moderator who, correctly, wishes for focus on content not contributors. However the salient issues at the Transhumanist politics Talk page are behaviorial: obtuse and extreme I-didn't-hear-that behavior, after repeated in-depth discussion of the content, repetitively, again and again, involving considerable time and attention of all other editors.

The complainant here, Haptic-Feedback, has shown no willingness to apologize for outright false assertions that have been completely disproven. They will not admit at the Talk page to any defect in their argument. So, here, I cannot believe that they will accept any judgment against them, unless it is by cynical, tactical pretense in order to further attempt to wreak havoc at the Talk page and the article, despite consensus against them. There is no good faith possible, if at the Talk page they will not admit to anything.

I'm sorry, but I regret and resent the waste of good effort by the moderator and others here.

For example, could (Redacted) acknowledge that their insistence of the existence of an American "Transhumanist Party" as a political party was wrong-headed, given the evidence--including Zoltan Istvan's own words--against that (in any reasonable way of construing what "political party" means)? How about acknowledging that interview mentions by Istvan or blog mentions of the "Transhumanist Party" term do not constitute any evidence at all of the existence of such a party (which should not be hard as again the non-existence is completely clarified by Istvan and some or all of the interviewers and bloggers).

And if H-F will admit to those, would they identify and apologize for 3 or 4 or 5 or 10 rude, personally-oriented, personal attack-type statements they made at the Talk page, against me and other participants?

I expect the answer is NO, H-F will not,

and the moderator would correctly point out that pre-conditions like I ask for are not typically given here. However, the objections all stand, and this statement by me explains my non-eagerness to participate here. I will comment in the 4th round below, now. --doncram 19:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by David Gerard

This is a tiny fragment of the actual problems:

WP:FOC - Focus on the content, not the editor. DRN is for content disputes.
  1. a substantially single-issue editor (Haptic-Feedback), over 90% of whose edits in the past few months have been to Transhumanist politics, Zoltan Istvan or their talk pages;
  2. who doesn't seem to understand WP:RS, and has a habit of adding lots of bad sources rather than any good ones;
  3. and keeps pushing Zoltan Istvan's "Transhumanist Party" as being a thing that actually exists in any meaningful sense rather than being a publicity outlet for Istvan. (The "Transhumanist Party" is already covered in detail on Zoltan Istvan.)

Past talk page disputes on this issue: almost the entirety of Talk:Transhumanist politics and its archives. Seriously, read the talk page and both the archive pages (archive 1, archive 2).

Multiple non-transhumanist editors have been exceedingly patient with Haptic-feedback in the past six months, painstakingly explaining why the terrible sources are terrible. The usual response is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As you'll see from the archives, literally the same questions come up repeatedly. I've posted to WP:FTN (and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transhumanism) a few times asking for more eyes, but the problem is persistent editing with no understanding of Wikipedia sourcing.

I can foresee any discussion here being a close copy of the discussions already on the talk page and in its archives. If you're interested in helping, reading through these will help a lot and avoid repetition of discussions.

We can hyperfocus on this one tiny aspect, but that's what the actual root cause of the problem looks like here. I'm not quite sure what to do to alleviate this - David Gerard (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gap9551

On my talk page I explained I'm not involved in the dispute, but since my opinion was asked, I had a closer look at the article and the list of references. The latter is a combination of sources close to the subject and apparently independent sources. Despite partially relying on sources close to the subject, the article itself appears to be quite neutral and balanced. It provides contrasting viewpoints (with attribution), and mentions some disagreement and criticism. I don't see positive interest issues. However, that doesn't mean that there can't still be a conflict of interest. An important policy question to consider here is to which extent primary sources/interviews are acceptable as supporting sources (as independent sources should dominate). My advise to resolve the dispute more effectively: It should be pointed out which specific sentences are considered not neutral and why. Then better sources for those statements have to be found, or the statements have to be removed/rewritten. Ideally the article should be improved to the point where everybody agrees the tag is no longer needed. Gap9551 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Abierma3

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

Talk:Transhumanist politics#Sources too closely associated with the subject discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion at the talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors, and it is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors at their talk pages (the article talk page is not sufficient). Also, a Request for Comments is in progress. We cannot accept this dispute unless two conditions are met. First, the other editors must be notified. Second, the RFC must be withdrawn or closed. This case will probably be closed shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: Thank you for taking such quick notice, but I am still in the process of informing the other editors. Please also note that the request for comment on that page is about a different issue, so it should not affect this dispute resolution request. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Volunteer note: - Confirming that the notifications have been sent to all involved parties by the filing editor, Haptic-feedback. Also confirming that the RfC concerning "Istavan's bus tour" is mostly irrelevant to this case; only relevance is editor conduct towards each other, bringing me to the final point as I am pre-empting the comments that may be made in the above summary sections. Civility is mandatory on Wikipedia and is more heavily enforced while a dispute is ongoing at the DRN by the various Volunteers, per the Mediation policy. Comments will be either collapsed or struck if deemed to be uncivil, or a personal attack, towards an editor(/s); the focus is on content, not contributors.
    I am willing to accept this case, pending the summaries of the involved parties. Participation at DRN is voluntary but often helpful for disputing parties to better understand each other, and to reach either a compromise or a new solution that is acceptable to the consensus of both sides in regards to the content dispute. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Some of the comments weren't specifically about you as an editor but your actions, which I see as acceptable so long as it is not uncivil or otherwise aggressive. I've done a collapse on the comments regarding you as an editor, as that is not the focus of the dispute. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

First Round of Statements

Apologies for the late start, I was waiting on the remaining three editors but I will be starting without @Dsprc and Doncram: as one appears to have stopped editing around the 25th/Jan/2015 and the other has significantly reduced their edit rate at around the same time, while Abierma3 appears to go on long breaks between edits and likely won't be online again for some time. Both users are welcome to join the discussion at any time by creating a section for their statements in whatever statement round we are in, if/when they decide to join the discussion. I will take the time to repeat; DRN discussion is purely voluntary and editors may leave or enter the discussion at any time but risk the discussion being closed for lack of participation if the case becomes one-sided or only between the moderator and a single user. Just saying.

So, some ground rules to help avoid making messy discussions and to help keep a lid on emotions, since we are here to focus on content, not on contributors (yes, that is the DRN mantra; no, we can't get rid of it).

  1. Per above; focus on content and avoid making allegations about, assigning blame to, and/or directing uncivil comments towards any editor.
    E.g. instead of saying "User:Example disruptively reverted my well-referenced, completely neutral and perfect edit in complete disregard for consensus, yadda yadda" simply say "My edit was reverted on [date] by User:Example". Notice how the first creates tension while the second is much more calm and neutral? That second example is precisely what DRN is based on and what I want to see from editors.
    I will, at all times, reserve the right to collapse comments that appear to be uncivil towards an editor, aggressive to an editor, or contain conduct allegations about an editor per the Mediation policy.
  2. Please do not create long/long-winded nor unclear/ambiguous posts.
    When you get asked a question about "What colour is the sky?" do you expect a 30-minute speech about the exact colour shading of the sky at the exact time you asked? No? Neither do I and by making shorter, simpler and clearer posts, you actually help make the resolution process run faster meaning we all go home happier sooner or you get helped to the most appropriate forum for resolution faster which leads back to going home happier sooner.
  3. Please respond within 48 hours, though I'll stretch to 72-hours, same rationale as point 2)
    I will also attempt to the best of my abilities to respond within the same time frame. At most, I may take 72 hours to respond or I will let you all know that there will be a short break so I can digest something or do some digging.
    If I can't continue for whatever reason, I will ask if one of the more active DRN members can take over for me, and again I will let you all know.
  4. Please avoid making threaded discussions, same reason as point 2) and related sub-point.
    Exception to this is if I ask for comments on something, or I am asking for clarification of a statement/etc. or if you're confused about anything and would like to request a clarification, or comments on an idea. This is a proactive platform, so don't expect me to make the magic solution ... I might make it, but you might think of something better.
    Still, try to avoid threaded discussion where possible unless it is a possible solution.
  5. I will ping either all current users involved in discussion or the relevant user(/s) for clarification when I have made a new statement or request. I use the {{U}} template for individual requests or {{ping}} for group responses.

(up-to-date, as of 05:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC))

So, as long as everyone is happy to live by those, let's get started. @Haptic-feedback, Gap9551, and David Gerard:

First question, (and I know it has been partly addressed above, I just want to make sure) is this content dispute about the sources being used in the article per the {{third party}} and {{unreliable sources}} templates?
Second question, if the content dispute is not solely about sources, what else is disputed?
First request, can someone please point out which section(/s) of the article are alleged to suffer from WP:UNDUE weight? Please include concise reasons as to why.
Second request, can someone please list which sources are believed to affecting the verifiability of the article? Please include concise reasons as to why.
Once these have been answered by the relevant parties, I will respond again. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors

Please comment only in your assigned section unless requesting a clarification. Remember to be civil and concise in your responses.

Haptic-feedback

In terms of content, I do believe that this dispute is solely about the sources, specifically regarding the third-party template. I do not know why claims of undue weight and unverifiable sources have been made. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Gap9551

Questions 1&2: I think this is only about sources. Requests 1&2: I leave that to editors who expressed concerns about these two issues in the dispute. Gap9551 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

David Gerard

[Empty]

Dsprc
  • Q1: Yes, for the most part, dispute is on unreliable sourcing.
  • Q2: (Behaviours but, "Content not Contributor")
  • R1: The portion on Views and insistence by some to allow Zoltan Istvan to dominate article (latter has been mostly resolved content-wise but is on-going struggle)
  • R2: Some of these and the rationale have been addressed here.

Second round of statements

Hello all, I will post a list of sources that seem to be contended with the reasons given, where possible. I will post this list tomorrow as my internet is currently messing around on my laptop and my phone is not the easiest device to use for Wiki editing. Sorry for the delay, I will post a list tomorrow and request feedback, and comments, regarding the aforementioned list of sources. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 09:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Update - So, my internet modem was playing silly games with me all weekend, apologies. See below for the update, @Dsprc, Haptic-feedback, David Gerard, and Gap9551:. I have yet to go through the sources since I was unable to access them over the weekend but I will try to go through at least some and start discussion after hearing both sides' claims regarding the sources. Remember to be concise, civil and clear in your responses. Any questions or comments can be placed in this section, but please ping me (preferably with {{u|Drcrazy102}}. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

List of contended sources

... per listing and reasoning given by Dsprc's comment at 18:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC). Listing using reference numbers from article as of this permalink revision.. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) per "... POV/COI self-pub[lished] transhumanist blogs w[ith] zero editorial oversight." (WP:UNRELIABLE and WP:RS/WP:IRS)
    4) Hughes, James (10 April 2009). "Transhumanist politics, 1700 to the near future"
    5) Hughes, James (1 May 2013). "The Politics of Transhumanism and the Techno-Millennial Imagination, 1626-2030"
    8) Konovalenko, Maria (26 July 2012). "Russians organize the "Longevity Party""
    9) Pellissier, Hank (20 August 2012). "Who are the "Longevity Party" Co-Leaders, and What do They Want? (Part 1)"
    23) Twyman, Amon (7 October 2014). "Transhumanism and Politics"
    24) Dvorsky, George (31 March 2012). "J. Hughes on democratic transhumanism, personhood, and AI"
    25) Hughes, James; Roux, Marc (24 June 2009). "On Democratic Transhumanism"
    31) Riccardo, Campa (24 June 2009), "Toward a transhumanist politics"
  2. Humanity+ per "transhumanist publication, COI"; (presuming POV-based reasoning, per "transhumanist publication")
    13) Rothman, Peter (1 July 2014). "Interview: Gabriel Rothblatt Congressional Candidate in Florida’s 8th District"
  3. Sources by, and interviews with, Zoltan Istvan per WP:UNDUE and WP:UNRELIABLE
    Istvan, Zoltan (5 May 2014). "Transhumanists and Libertarians Have Much in Common"; Huffington Post
    15) Bartlett, Jamie (23 December 2014). "Meet the Transhumanist Party: 'Want to live forever? Vote for me'"; The Telegraph
    17) Kaushik, Preetam (26 February 2015). "Transhumanism in India: Between faith and modernity"; Business Insider India
    18) Raj, Ajai (6 March 2015). "The Transhumanist Who Would Be President: An interview with Zoltan Istvan"; Medium.com (further reasoning given; "Medium.com, blog")
  4. Ray Kurzweil (kurzweilai.net) per WP:UNRELIABLE and WP:SELFPUB
    7) Prisco, Giulio (26 August 2012). "Italy elects first transhumanist MP".
  5. New Scientist per ... interview/talking points from transhumanist politician and WP:UNRELIABLE
    6) Cartlidge, Edwin (18 September 2012). "Meet the world's first transhumanist politician"
  6. Volpicelli per "... UK transhumanist writing about a near-nonexistent UK transhumanist group, Istvan's former colleague" and "...writing about themselves; WP:UNRELIABLE and WP:UNDUE-based reasoning
    19) Volpicelli, Gian (14 January 2015). "Transhumanists Are Writing Their Own Manifesto for the UK General Election"
    20) Volpicelli, Gian (27 March 2015). "A Transhumanist Plans to Run for Office in the UK"
  7. Existenz per "... republication of philosophical opinion piece by transhumanist""; (presuming WP:POV-based reasoning)
    26) Ferrando, Francesca (2013). "Posthumanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, Metahumanism, and New Materialisms Differences and Relations"
  8. Dale Carrico per WP:BLOGS, WP:RS and WP:IRS
    28) Carrico, Dale (2005). "Bailey on the CybDemite Menace"
  9. Rebekah Elkerton per ... student paper and opinion piece with zero citations ... (presuming WP:RS/WP:IRS-based reasonings)
    32) Elkerton, Rebekah (March 2015). "Collective Snapshots Of Contemporary Feminist (Dis)Courses"
  • Please list any further sources that are contended, or are to be considered for discussion. Please note that this list is based only off the centralised comment noted at the start since it listed the types of sources with reasons. I don't like going through pages of comments as it takes too much time. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Clarifications from Dsprc for above list

per inquiries from @Doctor Crazy CII:

  • 3: Istvan is fallout from rejected Transhumanist Party article. Consensus is against extensive inclusion of Istvan (a prior focus of some SPAs) per WP:UNDUE and additional scrutiny of sources' claims as many have proven outright bogus and unreliable.
  • 4: Largely self-published blog -- multiple contributors rather than one; may be unreliable and lack proper oversights. WP:RS/IPS/COI/POV
  • 5: More brief copy/paste than serious interview. Such views are welcome but this is very poor source for them. see: WPs of #4
  • 6: Individual is essentially writing about themselves; see #3 && WPs of #4.
  • 8: Self-published blog -- dsprc [talk] 23:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Dsrpc, but you do realise that sources don't have a WP:COI on Wikipedia unless their authors/etc. actually edit? I have changed the "COI/POV" to "UNDUE"/"UNRELIABLE". I hope that is understandable and acceptable. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Counter-claims

Please list counter-claims as to why these sources should be allowed for use in the article, based off policies and relevant guidelines. Please be concise, civil and clear in responses. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. IEET
    • This is a mainstream publisher on transhumanist topics that puts out the Journal of Evolution and Technology, and its staff is comprised largely of scholars, so the organization should not be discounted as a whole. The sources in question, of course, come from its blog, which is akin to a newsblog, so they should be treated as such.
    Sources #4, #5, and #31 are exceptions, because they were originally published by third-party journals (here, here, and here). Thus, they escape the given criticism and should be considered reliable.
    Sources #8, #23, #24, and #25 are only used to attribute their authors with their claims (e.g. "According to Amon Twyman..."). This is explicitly allowed by the newsblog policy, so it should be allowed here.
    This only leaves #9. Frankly, I do not understand how "POV" is meant as a critique of reliability in this case, as literally every piece of writing has a point of view, so I cannot address it here. However, I can say that this has no relevant conflict of interest, because the content drawn from it is not opinion and does not serve to benefit the author or non-profit publisher; rather, it is an uncontroversial statement of fact that can be verified by other sources on transhumanist topics. (It does not seem to have piqued the interest of non-transhumanist media, however.) Anyway, the content does not suggest that the Party succeeded in becoming a legal party; instead, it only says that the group started organizing, which is proven by primary sources' mere existence, so I cannot understand how these sources would be considered unreliable here.
    --Haptic Feedback (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Humanity+
    • This newsblog-based content is similar to that above – the material here is very explicit about attributing claims to the author and publication: "Writing for H+ Magazine in July 2014, futurist Peter Rothman..." Again, Wikipedia policy specifically allows this. I cannot see what kind of conflict of interest would cause this publisher – transhumanist or not – to lie about the author. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. New Scientist
    • The criticism here is nonsensical, because literally none of the interview is used as a source. Only the title of the article is used ("Meet the world's first transhumanist politician"), and it is only used to say, "New Scientist dubbed him 'the world's first transhumanist politician'", the validity of which is obvious. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Existenz
    • This journal is published by Boston University, and the paper – a thorough analysis written by an award-winning professor at NYU – has been cited dozens of times by other scholarly articles. Seriously, just look at the article – this will dispel the claim that this is an opinion piece, and it will show that it fits the verifiability policy's and reliability guidelines' descriptions of the best sources very well. I cannot find this article published anywhere else before the journal was released, but I do not understand how that would make it any less reliable. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  5. Dale Carrico
    • Note: This source seems to me like a well-written piece by an educated academic, but it is on a personal blog, and we already have two uncontested sources that support the same information, so I do not see the need to defend this one. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  6. Rebeka Elkerton
    • Note: I may have reached a bit too far when I used this source. Indeed, it does not seem to have great reasoning or research, and DSPRC's points are valid, but I thought that criticism published in an academic journal could find a consensus of support in the anti-transhumanist sentiment among the more vocal editors – apparently not. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Third round of Statements

I have been waiting for the clarifications to several of the contentious sources and the counter-claims for a "framework" to look at the sources in. I'll start looking more closely at how the sources are being used and the sources themselves over the coming days, but I would like to start with the "single" sources to 'keep the ball rolling'.

  • Is Rebekah Elkerton's "Collective Snapshots Of Contemporary Feminist (Dis)Courses" being agreed to be removed? I ask this since Haptic-feedback notes that they "may have reached a bit too far" and that "Dsprc's points are valid". It's apparent aim was to extend a peace offering to the "anti-transhumanist sentiment" and while that should be applauded, there may have been easier and/or more successful ways to do so. At any rate, is the Elkerton source and related information to be removed with agreement from editors?
@Haptic-feedback, Dsprc, Doncram, David Gerard, Gap9551, and Abierma3: for responses. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors

Haptic-feedback

Yes, I am fine with removing the Elkerton material. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Fourth round of Statements

I have removed the Elkerton source, and associated text, with agreement from Haptic-feedback.

I would now like to move onto the IIET sources, but before doing so I would like to ask that all involved editors either respond or tell me that you won't be responding. I waited 4 days for responses; I agreed to 2 days or I would close the discussion. If this continues to happen, I will close this case and recommend it be taken to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and/or the Neutral POV Noticeboard for discussion amongst the wider community. If editors would prefer to do that now, no worries but please let me know. I will wait 2 days, if there are either no, or only one, response(/s) by the third day then any DRN Volunteer may close this discussion due to a lack of participation.

Pinging @Haptic-feedback, Dsprc, Doncram, David Gerard, Gap9551, and Abierma3: for responses and comments.

Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The IEET sources appear to be the most contested and so I would remind editors to be civil and concise in responding.

4) Hughes, James (10 April 2009). "Transhumanist politics, 1700 to the near future" & 5) Hughes, James (1 May 2013). "The Politics of Transhumanism and the Techno-Millennial Imagination, 1626-2030"
This paragraph of text is likely to meet WP:UNDUE per #Balancing aspects. Perhaps cut down the size of the paragraph and include other opinions, or – even better – definitions of "transhumanist politics" to balance this and fill out the paragraph.
8) Konovalenko, Maria (26 July 2012). "Russians organize the "Longevity Party"" & 9) Pellissier, Hank (20 August 2012). "Who are the "Longevity Party" Co-Leaders, and What do They Want? (Part 1)"
I have to admit that IMO, source #8 (M. Konovalenko, 2012) is a particularly 'weak' source considering that it is originally a self-published blog, and should have been referenced as such – not to IEET's republication. However, for attributing the "100% transhumanist party" quote, it would be deemed as 'reliable, in context'. Move the citation to the quote and there should not be any concerns since the quote is being cited, not the remainder of the article. The quote is important as it comes from a founder of the Longevity Party, but it could still be removed without impacting heavily on the article.
#9 (H. Pellissier) is a better source since it is not a self-published source, and in context is reliable for simply stating "In 2012, Russia-based Longevity Party started organising to be a balloted political party" since it is interviewing one of the founders of the Longevity Party who does mention this. I would suggest finding a better source for this information, excluding IEET sources, just to avoid this discussion cropping up again.
23) Twyman, Amon (7 October 2014). "Transhumanism and Politics"
Good in regards to in-text attribution, but does the source and information warrant inclusion? Are there any other definitions of transhumanist politics, and its political outreach? Include those as well since this comes off as a bit undue to IEET, and Twyman, in a political belief held by a "diverse range" of adherents (see source).
25) Hughes, James; Roux, Marc (24 June 2009). "On Democratic Transhumanism"
Comment – Expand on "why" Ronald Bailey is critical of the "democratic transhumanism"; possibly WP:UNDUE due to the continued use of Hughes' sources, ideas, etc. Find alternatives or just make the claim (using reliable and external sources) that Hughes is a "giant" in the field of Transhumanist Politics.
31) Riccardo, Campa (24 June 2009), "Toward a transhumanist politics"
This is starting to enter WP:UNDUE territory for the section "Core Values" (see reasoning from #4 J. Hughes). Bundle the IEET authors into a summarised version and include external opinions and sources, or you may have to remove some parts. I also can't access the source so if someone could provide a WayBack url, that'd be great.

Editors

Haptic-feedback

4 & 5: I think that the last two sentences of the paragraph should be condensed into one. Maybe Roland Benedikter's Age of Transhumanist Politics (Part I, Part II, Part III) can be used for a couple of sentences of content.

8 & 9: I support moving citation #8 for clarity. Unfortunately, I cannot find any better sources for #9's content.

23: I've found it quite hard to find good sources that actually define transhumanist politics (not just transhumanism), so I consider this source particularly important. The only other good one that I know of is the one used for the opening sentence of the article. #23 is also helpful listing some different aspects of transhumanist politics, so I would really like to keep this material.

25: Hughes does seem to be an important scholar on transhumanist politics – most other sources on transhumanism seem to neglect its political aspect. His Google Scholar page shows over 1336 citations of his work in academia – surely enough to warrant multiple mentions in a field that he is pioneering, especially if he has a coauthor, as he does here.

31: Again, the IEET post is just a republication of an article in a scholarly journal. I posted a WayBack Machine link above – did you miss it, or did it not work for you?

--Haptic Feedback (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Moderator Comment - @Haptic-feedback:
  • Good to hear about 4 & 5, it is best practice (when possible) to use a variety of sources when referencing. There are few areas (outside gaming and some music) where there are not multiple sources from a variety of authors. This may be one of those areas, but still try to use a variety. @Doncram and Dsprc:, would you accept these sources for use? (I haven't yet checked - will update after checking)
  • I'll move 8 then. If you can't find anything else with 9's content, you may want to consider whether it fits within the WP:NPOV's fringe section. Again, in context it seems passable but not for general usage.
  • I'd suggest creating a private list of the contended sources where you list which ones you really want to keep and which you can let go. This may help with searching for new sources as you don't just go looking for everything. At any rate, 23 seems passable with in-text attribution. 25 is entering different grounds of continued usage of the same source, same author, becoming a tad promotional which is not good and why varied sourcing is preferred. Try using Hughes' actual academic work then, rather than his IEET postings, since – as you state – "His Google Scholar page shows over 1336 citations of his work in academia.
  • I did miss the WayBack link you posted above and have looked at the link now. It seems that this (or the English "original") should be the referenced link (again, it seems someone needs to do a clean-up of a few citations using the tips here, and finding the actual originals). As to the source itself, it is another IEET link but as stated in the source "Example text" and with the in-text attribution that it is Campo's opinion, that seems to cover the WP:UNDUE clause and would be reliable, in context, as long as it is presented as Campo's personal opinion until further (and varied) reliable sources back this statement.
  • @Drcrazy102: To mitigate the perception of promotion of Hughes, we could remove the content attributed to him in the introduction that does not have a citation. We can also remove his name from content citing his research where that research is not controversial or from a newsblog and therefore can be said without his name. I think that this, along with reducing the information from him in the first paragraph of the history section, would be enough.
Also, that is a good point about using original sources. We should do that.
By the way, thank you so much for helping out here! It is great to have a productive conversation with someone about content. (I will defend myself against Doncram's character assassination attempt, though, if you think that it will help.)
--Haptic Feedback (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Dsprc

IEET are personal web log entries with zero controls; anyone can and does publish anything unchecked on this social network (given example was Richard Stallman's whatever this thing is) -- they're not the aforementioned Journal. ((strike: these appeared in the Journal; differentiation is difficult when jointly published on open blogging platform))

More broadly IEET serve as an advocacy and promotional organization which raises reliability issues.

One of the problems is we have only a small sect of a transhumanist milieu discussing the subject and very little from outside them. Coverage of subject is predicated almost entirely on opinions of this intermingling and coalescing milieu: "So-and-So believes", "according to X" and so on, with scant facts a' la "X is Y" or input from mainstream publications that aren't transhmanist or other advocacy organizations with conflicts of or vested interests in the information presented.

If Hughes has a well-vetted piece which is oft-cited, discussed or critiqued in mainstream publications then we should use those not his personal blog entries.

The re-public.gr source mentioned above is also just a random transhumanist blog/Web-site, not a "scholarly journal".

Some stuff from 3rd round which I missed:

  • New Scientist piece relies on click-bait title alone with content not supporting claims so that can go.
  • Carrico can go as agreed.
  • Existenz is KJSNA (an advocacy org) not BU. Only reason it lives at BU.edu is because of Olson's tenure. Aside from that we still suffer opinion.
  • That Rothman contradicts themselves with loose "facts" raises questions about reliability of these statements and probably should not be included since both have proven inaccurate and untrue. -- dsprc [talk] 08:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Doncram

Please see my just-completed initial statement above. It is important to economize here. In the 3rd round, which I see has now been collapsed, an Elkerton source was questioned and H-F conceded "Yes, I am fine with removing the Elkerton material." So, I think the presence of the tag questioning sources is supported, and this DRN item should be concluded. The tag is upheld. Done. I am dead serious that I think this is the best possible resolution here. I don't see merit of further discussion. --doncram 19:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Moderator comment - So, Doncram, you don't want to actually discuss the problem behind the tag? That's what we have now moved onto; discussion of the sources that required the tag to be placed. If you don't wish to participate, no worries since DRN participation and discussion is voluntary, but the discussion needs two-sides or I will have to close this case and say "Go [here], [there] and/or [somewhere else] for more help". Thank you for commenting. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Drcrazy102, I do appreciate your trying to help. What is the dispute to be resolved, and how can it be resolved, however? The request for DRN asked for help in terms of addressing the template. "How can DRN help", approximately, was spelled out, approximately, as 1), 2), and 3) elements which were to ascertain if there were bad sources, to identify specifically at least some of them, and then to determine what to do about the template (presumably to judge that the template should be removed, assuming it would be deemed all is hunky-dory). The scope was not to include finding different better sources to support some position so that material could be kept without a negative template. The scope was not to rewrite the article. Tasks like those would be furthered by talk page discussion, if they could be achieved. Or perhaps it is not feasible right now to revise or to completely rewrite the article adequately so that no tags would be justified. The explicitly defined scope has been completed: it has been determined there are sucky sources used, and a negative tag was justified. Drcrazy102, do you now have a different scope in mind?
Put it another way: can a troll or anyone else assert there is a dispute whether some stub should be rated as a featured article, and demand that every omission be spelled out by others, where they must provide exact wording of what would remedy each omission. So the troll could copy-paste the new work into the article and slap a featured article tag onto it, and no one could protest? DRN cannot be used to put burden on others or else a high quality rating gets to be applied (or equivalently that negative tags get removed). That's not how things work.
I suggest this DRN be closed, with call for a next step to be a positive one instead of this. If one wants to have a productive discussion at DRN or talk page, it should be positively framed: e.g. "Here is a new passage, can we accept or revise it so it can be added, or so it can replace some existing passage." Rather than the double negative type of proposal: "I for one don't agree that this passage is bad/unsupported, so I am going to remove the negative tag (or add back the passage that was removed)". doncram 06:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
p.s. At the Talk page I make proposal to remove "history" which seems egregious and would happen to drop sources 4 & 5 (under discussion here). This is related because I do disrespect those sources or at least how they have been used in construction of a supposed history. (One could call this entirely negative, not improvement by asserting double negative.) doncram 06:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Doncram, you had me ... then you lost me somewhere in the second paragraph and I rallied in your third paragraph.
So first, my understanding of the dispute was - at the 'tip of iceberg' - "is the tag justified, how so and why?" Just like you said, but below that 'tip' is the actual dispute over "what can be done to improve the article's neutrality?" I pretty much answered the first question as soon as I started going through the sources but then I started to answer the dispute, politely and civilly, with reasons why sources and statements were non-neutral (if applicable), and options for improvement - based on the talkpage discussions. I have not started a discussion on "finding new sources", that was my recommended solution to resolving this dispute. In saying all that, I'm happy for the discussion to go back to the talkpage if it will continue to be civil and productive; if not, then it's just going to come back to DRN and I would prefer to resolve this now rather than having to re-moderate the dispute at a later date, if not recuse because I've already become "involved".
The example you have provided is a bit of a straw man argument since DRN accepts content disputes informally. We leave the formal "status" of pages alone. We help resolve the content dispute, through moderation, providing suggestions and making editors focus on the content - not each other. Which means - yes, we go "oh hey, there's a problem, there's another, oh found another ..." if it is appropriate. Often, we simply ask each party what they think the dispute is, we then tell everybody "you're arguing about this, this one detail" and provide some help in reaching a compromise/solution through discussion. I'm now doing that last part, the "help in reaching a compromise/solution through discussion" part. I'm changing the article content because the person who input the text, said "okay, my mistake, get rid of it" - done; then they agreed "okay, move the citation to show what it is there for" - done; I'm resolving the actual dispute, not the tag (which is getting resolved anyway) but the sourcing that caused the tag to be put up in the first place.
If you want to contribute to the discussion on removing the tag by fixing the article content and sourcing, by all means join us; if you don't want to, you don't have to since discussion is voluntary. I'll note that you said for this to be closed and if Gap and Dsprc say the same, I will since there won't be a dispute to moderate.
Finally, I'm failing to see this as a double negative since I've been the only one proposing anything and it's been along the lines of "Ok, this is bad - this part here and it's source - here's a solution to make it good; agree, disagree, or did I make a mistake?" ... that seems to be a 'positively framed' discussion. If that isn't, then I'm going to need to re-study a lot of logic lessons. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Fifth Round

Moderator's Closing comments (Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum)

Hello again. I am going to close this discussion as I do not have the time anymore to help in resolving this dispute. I have provided what seems to be clear instruction on how to improve the sourcing for information which has been the crux of this 'neutrality' dispute. If any further areas need help, I would personally recommend using WP:RSN, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, to gain further help with sourcing and produce discussion. Refiling is welcomed, but a second attempt at discussion must be evident and in line with the guides listed at the top of the DRN page. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 12:55, 14 February 2016 (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.

Talk:Geopolymer

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Users JDavidovits and Johnprovis are both prominent scientists in the area of geopolymers, and have a fundamental disagreement regarding technical aspects of these materials, which led to JDavidovits staking (in my opinion) ownership of the page by reverting more than a year's edits by all editors other than himself. Request is for a third party to read the page history and ensure that proper Wikipedia policies are followed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have debated this in person and have reached an impasse

How do you think we can help?

Find a middle-ground in the edit 'war' which represents both viewpoints and upholds Wikipedia protocols

Summary of dispute by JDavidovits

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

Talk:Geopolymer 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:Dark web#New_section:_Size

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

We are arguing about the following question. Are intranets an example of a darknet? If so, are web pages inside intranets part of the dark web? I say yes, two other editors say no.

My original plan was to start a Size section on the dark web page. I managed to find a reference saying what percentage of deep web are intranets and planned to use it in my new Size section to estimate the size of this part of the dark web relative to the entire deep web. I then wanted to contrast this with the size of the Onionland, showing that intranets are huge and Onionland is tiny in comparison.

My edit was reverted by Deku-shrub who wanted to discuss the aforementioned question.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to persuade other involved users that I am right by quoting the definition of a darknet from the dark web Wikipedia page and the definition of intranet from external source and claiming that they match. I also claimed that when the term darknet first appeared, it stood for what we now call intranet and supported it by another quote.

dsprc did not participate in the discussion much. Deku-shrub keeps opposing my views from the beginning.

How do you think we can help?

Somebody who knows what the terms darknet, intranet, deep and dark web (should) mean could bring an expert opinion to the discussion.

One of the opinions voiced in in the 9 August 2015 Requested move voting on the same talk page claimed that Dark Web stands for "criminal, malicious operation". This is probably inevitable shift in meaning given the connotations of the word "dark".

Are botnets examples of darknets? What about lobby systems and matchmaking networks in multiplayer video games? What about the Skype P2P network?

Summary of dispute by dsprc

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

Summary of dispute by Deku-shrub

TvojaStara is adding original research, claiming that:

a) Intranets are darknets

b) The dark web therefore extends to intranets. Not that this would follow even if this were the case, which it's not.

He's not been able to cite either of these positions Deku-shrub (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Dark web#New_section:_Size discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been sufficient discussion at the talk page. The other two editors have been notified. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it is ready to be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN and, though I'm not sure I want to take the case, I do have a question for the filing party, TvojaStara: The burden section of the Verifiability policy says, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The "directly supports" in that quotation is well-established to mean that the source which supports the material must actually say what the source is provided to support. In this case, an assertion that intranets are part of the dark net must, therefore, be supported by a source which says that they're part of the dark net, using the term "dark net." The synthesis policy which is a type of prohibited original research expands on this, saying "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." (Emphasis added.) So my question is this: Do you have a source which alone says that intranets are part of the dark web and does so using the term "dark net"? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out WP:SYNTH, my original justification is out, then. I do have new sources for it. I found this statement from (somebody claiming to be) Shava Nerad, Founding executive director of The Tor Project, which says this explicitly https://www.quora.com/How-many-darknet-networks-do-you-know-about. TvojaStara (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@TvojaStara: Quora and Nerad are not reliable sources. Further, the link you provide throws a generic "Server error" 404-esque message so can not be verified. -- dsprc [talk] 08:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Quora was down about the time you wrote your reply. TvojaStara (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@TvojaStara: Thanks. Example given in social media post is a Techradar piece authored by an unknown "PC Plus". It has some issues, but I don't know if should wait to address those as formal procedure here or to close/abandon this DR and follow up on talk page (personally feel DR was a bit hasty and premature). -- dsprc [talk] 20:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer to continue with the DR. In my 14:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC) comment on the talk page, I raised what I consider legitimate objections against the definition of dark web in the dark web Wikipedia article (namely that it does not come from the references given after it) which Deku-shrub choose to completely ignore. Ultimately, the article should list all relevant definitions. TvojaStara (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I will be opening this case for discussion. Here are the ground rules. Comment only on content, not on contributors. This noticeboard is for content issues, not conduct issues. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Uncivil comments or comments on contributors may be hatted. Overly long (non-concise) posts do not clarify. Do not engage in threaded discussion; do not address other contributors. Address your comments to this noticeboard as such. Do not make any non-minor edits to the article while this discussion is in progress. Avoid discussion on the article talk page while this discussion is in progress, because discussion on the article talk page may be ignored. Check on this noticeboard at least every 48 hours and respond to questions in a timely manner. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Will each editor please summarize concisely what issues they see? I see that at least one editor wants a Size section. I also see that there are issues about reliable sources and synthesis amounting to original research. I note that the existing article does address the inconsistency in use of terminology. Are there any issues about whether that should be changed? Please summarize concisely what each of you thinks the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors

TvojaStara - Moderator has no idea why a participant collapsed their own statement. However, I am leaving it collapsed because it is too long, didn't read. Please be concise. Do not collapse your own post. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I will address each point in turn. In summary, I am dropping the intranet issue and hoping to reach consensus on both parts of the definition issue and the size section.

Intranets: I think the issue was sufficiently described in Dispute overview me and in Summary of dispute by Deku-shrub in the DR filling. I have nothing to add.

I was unable to find a reliable source stating that intranet is a kind of a dark net. IMO it is an obvious consequence of one of the definitions, but 1) it is the most dated definition from the 70's 2) most importantly, no reliable source bothers to spell it out. I therefore accept that my assertion cannot be part of Wikipedia.

Definition of darknet, in the article: I already explained my reasoning on the talk page. Since it is a different page, I'll quote it here

[...] and (I am adding now) in fact is not even supported by the references. First reference (number 2 in the article) http://www.wired.com/2014/11/hacker-lexicon-whats-dark-web/ says "Dark Web is a collection of websites that are publicly visible, yet hide the IP addresses of the servers that run them. That means anyone can visit a Dark Web site, but it can be very difficult to figure out where they’re hosted—or by whom." The second article http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/how-to/internet/what-is-dark-web-how-access-dark-web-deep-joc-3593569/ says "The Dark Web is a term that refers specifically to a collection of websites that are publicly visible, but hide the IP addresses of the servers that run them. Thus they can be visited by any web user, but it is very difficult to work out who is behind the sites. And you cannot find these sites using search engines.". The article talks about "World Wide Web content that exists on darknets, overlay networks which use the public Internet but which require specific software, configurations or authorization to access." The second article is inaccurate in saying that you cannot find dark websites with search engines. There are such ssearch engines, see the "Hidden Service lists and search engines" section at http://thehiddenwiki.org/. TvojaStara (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(I no longer claim that the definition in the article is incorrect. It is just one of many and as I asserted essentially unsourced one, but that does not make it incorrect.)

Definition of darknet, in general: There are many, I tried to list all I found on the talk page. This is a briefer summary:

  1. A network (range of IP addresses) that are made inaccessible from the wide Internet. (In other words, with restricted access.)
  2. Network using nonstandard protocols, breaking interoperability with the Internet. (Also restricted access, but as a consequence)
  3. A network (range of IP addresses) that does not exist, either the addresses are not assigned to any computer or a honeypot was build there.
  4. Anonymity network
  5. Filesharing network (some definitions say any file sharing without qualification, some specify that it is used for illegal file sharing)
  6. Community of reclusive people engaged in illegal DRM circumvention. (That is, the people and the behavior, not the technological means.)

(and there are various combinations of the above, for example the Oxford English dictionary defines darknet as a filesharing network with illegal content and with restricted access; some definitions require it to be an overlay network, together with other attributes; and so on.)

In the filling, I raised the following questions. I would like to know how should the reader of the darknet article is supposed to answer them (after he or she reads the article).

Are botnets examples of darknets? What about lobby systems and matchmaking networks in multiplayer video games? What about the Skype P2P supernode network?

I would like to reach an agreement that those definitions exist and that legality of the thing is an aspect to many of them. I was wrong in previously suggesting that the article must present one definition as the "true" one. I now say they are relevant and I would like to reach an agreement that they should all eventually become part of Wikipedia (darknets are being defined in at least three different pages I know of; the darknet page should list all of them, the other places should probably either summarize and link to the main article (the types of networks article) or IMO focus on anonymity network aspect (dark web article) because that is the most widely used meaning, because journalists, because darknet sounds cool and because Tor).

Size section:

What I originally wrote was original research, therefore it is out of the window, and it made not very useful conclusions to boot. What I want to do now is to

state that the number of websites in Tor (meaning hidden services that are web servers) has been estimated to be 3k, "less than 10k", "0.01% of the surface web" and "no more than 30k". I have reliable sources for all those numbers and other reliable sources giving less precise estimates, like "low tens of thousands". Nobody questions that Tor websites are part of the dark web. I will limit the section to Tor sites, since them being part of the dark web is not disputed. (Tor does not meet definitions that focus on filesharing and require restricted access, but that is probably just because the definitions are dated, from times when low latency anonymity networks were not yet implemented and when filesharing was done on F2F networks the authors of the definitions did not realize restricted access is not required to maintain privacy.)

Inconsistency in terminology: During the summer, there was an effort to unite the definitions (darknet/dark web/deep web/...) throughout Wikipedia.[1] My summary of the referenced article is that journalists started using the terms interchangeably, in response to that company Bright Planet has decided on firmly reestablish definitions for those terms. Now we have a dilemma, as the article puts it "Should denizens of the dark web and deep web attempt to fully claim the term ‘deep web’ from Bright Planet, or alternatively should communities start to move to more distinct terminologies?". This summer project molded Wikipedia content to follow what Bright Planet declared and in this way took an active step helping to resolve the dilema in their direction.

Doing this seems to me worse than original research. Put in this way, it describes what amounts to an act of creating the substance matter.

Definitions in the linked Bright Planet and Dictionary.com articles say that dark web is a subset of the deep web. From my personal experience, there are search engines that index .onion websites, which are dark web, therefore also deep web, therefore unindexable.

I realized the following problem during the course of our discussion. In "Summary of dispute by Deku-shrub" it was stated that "TvojaStara is adding original research, claiming that: a) Intranets are darknets b) The dark web therefore extends to intranets. Not that this would follow even if this were the case, which it's not." (boldface is my doing) the bolded section suggests to me that it is not believed that dark web is "web on darknets". I previously thought (from reading the dark web article) that this is what we agree upon. Do we?

TvojaStara (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I'll abbreviate it.

Intranets: I was unable to find a reliable source stating that intranet is a kind of a dark net. IMO it is an obvious consequence of one of the definitions, but no reliable source bothers to spell it out. I therefore accept that my assertion cannot be part of Wikipedia.

Definition of darknet, in the article: It is unsourced by the references cited just after it. (refs #2 and #3)

Definition of darknet, in general: There are many, I tried to list all I found on the talk page. I would like to reach an agreement that all those definitions exist, they are relevant to the article and that legality of darknets is an aspect to many of them.

Size section: What I originally wrote was original research, therefore it is out of the window, and it made not very useful conclusions to boot. What I want to do now is to focus it on Tor sites, since them being part of the dark web is not disputed.

Inconsistency in terminology: During the summer, there was an effort to unite the definitions (darknet/dark web/deep web/...) throughout Wikipedia.[2] My summary of the referenced article is that journalists started using the terms interchangeably, in response to that company Bright Planet has decided on firmly reestablish definitions for those terms. Now we have a dilemma, as the article puts it "Should denizens of the dark web and deep web attempt to fully claim the term ‘deep web’ from Bright Planet, or alternatively should communities start to move to more distinct terminologies?". This summer project molded Wikipedia content to follow what Bright Planet declared and in this way took an active step helping to resolve the dilema in their direction. Doing this seems to me worse than original research. Put in this way, it describes what amounts to an act of creating the substance matter.

TvojaStara (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Dsprc
  1. Since there is admission the claim on intranets not being darknets then it appears the scope of this dispute has been resolved.
  2. Definitions of darknets and Web are well established. [(net)(web) Google Scholar]
  3. Listing everything one can think of and writing a manifesto is not helpful: WP:TLDR... They're only illegal in oppressive regimes (e.g. Iran) but so is most free expression. [Freedom House: Freedom on the Net 2015]
  4. Proper nomenclature for deep web is also known. [Google Scholar] (Never even heard of Bright Planet but cleaning up articles and covering the conflation therein is not a dilemma) -- dsprc [talk] 20:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Deku-shrub

I will admit these pages have been a personal research project and that the articles written about them are in fact synthesis. I stand by my position that intranets are not darknets - even if those writings (which isn't even cited) were to not be considered. Deku-shrub (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

So is there agreement that intranets are not dark nets, because they aren't on the Internet at all? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there agreement among all of the editors to throw out what has been labeled as original research? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please explain what the Bright Planet issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The article does refer to inconsistencies in general use of terminology. Does anyone think that it needs to be changed? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

One editor wants to introduce a statement about the number of TOR web sites. Do other editors agree? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

What else are the remaining issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

TvojaStara

Intranets: There is no source saying "intranets are darknets", neither there is a source saying "intranets are not darknets". My interpretation (which would be likely considered to be WP:SYNTH) is that under some definitions of darknet intranets are darknets, under other definitions not. I concede that statement on the relationship between darknets and intranets cannot be part of Wikipedia, because it is unsourced. I consider this point resolved.

The terminology is IMO not well established. For example, second-from-the-top result from Google Scholar (first open-access) results provided by Dsprc says We define this reverse side of the Web as a “Dark Web,” the portion of the World Wide Web used to help achieve the sinister objectives of terrorists and extremists." (Chen, Hsinchun, et al. "Uncovering the dark Web: A case study of Jihad on the Web.") This shows that individual researches feel free (in 2008) to ad-hoc define the term dark web for use in their article and do not feel bound by existing definitions. On the talk page, I listed a whole heap of different darknet definitions (that I copied from a linked review article in a law journal).

Point #3 by Dsprc in first round: This is a misunderstanding. Some definitions (from the review article) explicitly say darknets are illegal. Some, e.g. the Microsoft paper from 2005, define darknets as filesharing networks for copyrighted content. Therefore (WP:SYNTH?) under this definition darknets are illegal everywhere there is copyright law in place. I remember reading once that Afghanistan does not (yet) have copyright law in place. But otherwise darknets (when defined the Microsoft way) are illegal in the rest of the world.

What I think are remaining issues:

  1. Definitions of darknet and dark web in the dark web article are not supported by references. (refs 2# and 3# that are being cited after the definition do not support it and contain in fact a different definition)
  2. There are many disparate definitions of darknet and dark web, in case of darknet ranging from "an anonymity network" to "a community of reclusive people who break copyright law" (I am paraphrasing here). I maintain that the relevant WIkipedia articles should eventually (as editors' time permits) acknowledge this and the articles should not read as if there was one true definition for each of those terms, which they do now.

TvojaStara (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Deku-shrub

A very strange proxy argument appears to be taking place. There is a dispute about the definition of darknet, which is fair enough, but it's being used to modify definitions of dark web. It's my belief that this should be an entirely separate discussion if darknet needs to be better defined.

I accept there is a separate alternative use of dark web to mean 'various illegal stuff online' and that's a reasonable candidate for its own subsection in the article.

Neither of these points have any bearing on the initial issue raised, so the argument appears to be based on sowing various uncertainty and doubt about quality of the article in order to allow in looser definitions. I continue to oppose such moves. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

We don't seem to be getting much closer to identifying the issues (let alone working on them). Can each editor please identify any sentences in the draft that they think should be changed, and how and why?

I see that there is mention of an alternate, more restrictive definition of "dark web" or "dark net" to refer exclusively to a particular illegal use, copyright violation. That isn't in the article. If any editor thinks it should be mentioned as an alternate, more restrictive definition, please provide a reliable source (e.g., Microsoft). (However, such a use isn't consistent with the article, which identifies multiple legal and illegal uses.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it agreed that the dark web consists of darknets? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

TvojaStara

In the dark web article:

The dark web is the World Wide Web content that exists on darknets, overlay networks which use the public Internet but which require specific software, configurations or authorization to access.[3][4]

The above should be changed because the given references do not support it. It should instead give an overview of dark web definitions actually found in reference material.

In the darknet article:

A darknet (or dark net) is an overlay network that can only be accessed with specific software, configurations, or authorization, often using non-standard communications protocols and ports.

This is unsourced claim. Here is an overview article that lists various sourced definitions of darknet.[5]

Fred von Lohmann incorporated the element of privacy, defining the Darknet as “[t]he collection of networks and other technologies that enable people to illegally share copyrighted digital files with little or no fear of detection.” In his 2005 book, Darknet: Hollywood’s War Against the Digital Generation, Darknet expert J.D. Lasica emphasized that darknets can be used for illegitimate activities.117 Lascia defined darknets as “networks of people who rely on closed-off social spaces—safe havens in both virtual and real worlds where there is little or no fear of detection—to share copyrighted digital material with others or to escape the restrictions on digital media imposed by entertainment companies.”

On page Computer_network#Darknet

A Darknet is an overlay network, typically running on the internet, that is only accessible through specialized software. A darknet is an anonymizing network where connections are made only between trusted peers — sometimes called "friends" (F2F)[21] — using non-standard protocols and ports.

Darknets are distinct from other distributed peer-to-peer networks as sharing is anonymous (that is, IP addresses are not publicly shared), and therefore users can communicate with little fear of governmental or corporate interference.[22]

The claim about "connections only between trusted peers" is nonsense. Claim about "overlay network" is unsourced. It relies to much on source [21] and does not incorporate other sources (that define darknet differently).

(My personal impression from all I've seen so far is that darknet and dark web are shapeless terms that are (throughout the history) being slapped on anything fishy going on the Internet. First those were the closed off subnets in the 70's used by military, then everybody was crazy about copyright infringement on P2P networks, now terrorists and drug dealers (and "legitimate" stuff) on Tor. The Oxford Dictionary defines darknet as "a computer network with restricted access that is used chiefly for illegal peer-to-peer file sharing." I bet this was added to the dictionary before Tor became popular. The confusion is even greater when people use "net" and "web" interchangeably, e.g. this book. This being the case, I prefer to use descriptive terms, like "unassigned address space", "anonymity network", "Tor", "file-sharing network", "intranet" ;) , "virtual private network", ".onion sites")

TvojaStara (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator

A theme running through these comments is that unsourced definitions are being used, and then said to be unsourced definitions. I would suggest that the lede sentence should state that there are multiple definitions for Dark web and darknet, with some generic statement, unsourced, that sort of summarizes them. A section on Definitions and Terminology is then needed. Anyone who can provide a referenced definition should include it there. So the first question is: What is a good vague way to summarize the meaning of Dark web in the lede? Second, what should all of the sourced definitions be? The Definitions and Terminology section should also include the relationship between Dark web and darknet. Is the first made up of the second, or what? These are definitions and should be referenced. Provide your input below. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

dsprc

RE: round 2 since busy with life:

  • Read papers listed on Scholar, not their little blurbs or summaries (wild concept: actual research); if paper's paywalled there are ways to access them...
  • Darknets are 100 percent legal. Full stop.

Direct any replies to above at my talk page, not here. (no manifestos!)

Round 4 stuff:

TvojaStara

I agree with everything in round 4 so far (moderator and dsprc) except

  1. depends on what you mean by dark web (what definition). It does not always have to be a websites running in a darknet.
  2. OED darknet definition says "a computer network with restricted access that is used chiefly for illegal peer-to-peer file sharing." Therefore not illegal in itself, but its use for illegal purposes is a defining characteristic.

TvojaStara (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Deku-shrub

This is my first dispute resolution, but I no longer see the fundamental connection between the original item raised and what we're discussing now. Do the varied definitions need to be better defined? Yes. Does this discussion need to happen here? Not in my opinion Deku-shrub (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator

At least one editor thinks that we can close this thread and take discussion back to the talk page. Do other editors agree? If so, we will close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If not, please state again what the remaining issues are. Are they the multiple definitions, or something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors

dsprc

To avoid scope-creep: shut it down... Should any issues remain with definitions or claims of various sources, they can be addressed by vetting each individually on talk pages, through inquiries to WP:Library, Google Scholar (as suggested previously) and so forth, or through consultation of WP:RS/N if need be. -- dsprc [talk] 09:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

TvojaStara

OK. TvojaStara (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2016 (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.

Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#Infobox

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

A lengthy discussion regarding the type of infobox to be used on the page produced no consensus as to changing it, yet a faction of editors has maintained that such a consensus was produced and has been edit warring to maintain their version of the infobox on the page. These editors have ceased meaningful discussion on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried using the talk page to no avail and also opened up a request for comment with no results.

How do you think we can help?

To help determine whether or not consensus to change the infobox was reached in previous discussions.

Summary of dispute by Panam2014

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

Summary of dispute by Iryna Harpy

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

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

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

Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#Infobox 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:Johann Sebastian Bach, later RfC

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

An RfC recently passed its 30-day time limit. First, I would like that RfC to be closed. There was a vote taken with outcome 3-2, so there was no consensus.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I proposed a compromise but so far no others have responded to it.

How do you think we can help?

Fountains-of-Paris had launched the RfC, not long after the closure of a previous one launched by the same user. But Fountains-of-Paris was last heard from on 25 January. How can the absence of that user be taken into account?

Summary of dispute by Francis Schonken

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

Summary of dispute by Fountains-of-Paris

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

Summary of dispute by Buxtehude

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

Summary of dispute by SageRad

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

Summary of dispute by maunus

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

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, later RfC 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.

Donald Trump

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Observed many complaints of POV / Recentism / Sync / and other issues. I submitted an edit to begin to address these issues through better use of transclusion.

A few editors are blocking the edit without providing legitimate arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Undiscussed_split

If there is a good argument against transclusion as I used, I'd love to know it. In my recent edit [1] the main Donald Trump article reads identically before an after my edit. I still see no argument against transclusion, but a lot of talk about other unrelated concerns.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to understand others' concerns, but it seems I'm being stonewalled. I've asked for explanations, supporting Wikipedia policies, etc. The response is generally something like "you can't do that" or "we have to approve your changes first" I've tried to alter the edit to better accommodate and still stonewalled.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like to get a neutral party to either help guide me or help guide the others or both. I believe my bold and good faith edit improves the article. I also believe others' reverts are against wikipedia policy such as WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:TALKDONTREVERT and essays like WP:DRNC and WP:ROWN which are the consensus of wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by Objective3000

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

Summary of dispute by Somedifferentstuff

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

This user has engaged in mass blanking and has been reverted by 3 different editors [2] [3] [4] -- I have engaged him on the talk page here [5] but from what I can see he has no idea how WP:Weight operates. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MrX

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

Donald Trump 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:Lavdrim Muhaxheri

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns removal of significant reference articles with court records, expert statements, and other relevant documents without an apparent reason. The editing is made without reaching or seeking consensus on the talkpage, often only commenting in the summary on the edit history page. Opinions have been reformulated to facts. Text has been rewritten to bias, under - representation, of the subject and significant information has been removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talkpage, Rfc, request for review

How do you think we can help?

By reviewing diffs between edits and versions versus what's been in accordance with consensus. Reviewing appropriate claims and formulations in Biography - articles.

Summary of dispute by Ohnoitsjamie

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

Summary of dispute by Zoupan

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

Summary of dispute by TU-nor

The filing editor opened a RfC about this article just a few days ago here. The filing editor has been adviced about forumshopping here. I suggest speedily decline. --T*U (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, by the way: No-one has been notified. --T*U (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have not been notified of this filing, and the filing party is required to notify the other editors. Discussion cannot begin until the other editors are notified. However, there is an RFC at the article talk page, and one of the other editors recommends that this case be declined due to the RFC. That editor is correct in that discussion cannot take place here when another dispute resolution mechanism is being used, such as an RFC, and an RFC "outranks" DRN. There are questions about whether the RFC is validly worded, but we cannot accept this discussion while the RFC is open. This thread will be procedurally closed. If the editors agree to withdraw the RFC and discuss here, we can discuss here if there is proper notice. Discussion here is voluntary, but cannot take place while discussion is taking place in another dispute resolution forum. By the way, the filing party says that we can help "By reviewing diffs between edits and versions versus what's been in accordance with consensus." I will clarify that how DRN is works is by moderated discussion between dispute participants, not by the moderator acting as a referee. The discussion of diffs, edits, and versions is fine, but the purpose of discussion here is to reach agreement between participants, not to judge between the cases of participants. Closing this case for now. If there is agreement to end the RFC and discuss here, it can be reopened. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2016 (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.

Talk:Ježica

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I am trying to add content to Ježica page for one month, but user Doremo is deleting it every time. First he complained about my bad english and deleted everything. I agreed to correct my english. I corrected that, but again he deleted everything. He complained about my notes that I didn`t state. I corrected that too. Than he complained about what he thinks it`s unnecessary content. We agreed that I will wrote small adds in longer period so he will be able to correct my bad English and what is necessary. Since than we cooperated pretty good. Still he was changing a lot of my content, but I let him cause it was not significantly changed. Now again he became rougher and in my opinion, exceeded the bounds of acceptable. From his acts it is obvious that he has no knowledge about Ježica, he does not understand things about what I am writing and he has no interest in them, so he is keep deleting them, thinking he is right. Example: 1. bridge of Sava river branch was deleted three times cause he thought this is the bridge of Sava, which is mentioned in other title. But this bridge is far away from the first bridge and represents interesting information that Doremo deleted. 2. Russian Czar is famous Ježica inn. Everybody knows that building as part of Ježica even though it was part of Mala vas in the past. So he does not allow that Russian Czar is mentioned on Ježica page, cause it is already mentioned on Mala vas page. So if people would like to come and see Ježica and what is interesting there, they will miss famous Russian Czar, cause it is not mentioned on Ježica page. 3. List of cultural heritage: Bronze plate is on this list officially but not on wikipedia. Cause it is not allowed by Doremo that states that it can`t be mentioned because it is mentioned in upper content. He added bridge of Sava river branch to cultural heritage even though it is not mentioned as cultural heritage officially.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I talked to him on Talk:Ježica, I stated my opinion, but never succeeded.

How do you think we can help?

Stop him from deleting everything that people write, somehow. His acts look like he owns Wikipedia, let him get explanation that other people can write things and everything can not be deleted. Explain him that better than delete content is to improve it.

Summary of dispute by Doremo

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

Grabyton has added welcome information to the article(s) in question, but it requires very heavy copyediting and tends to be repetitive (e.g., full paragraphs copy-pasted to multiple articles). He or she should be encouraged to continue making small additions (so that other editors can improve basic language errors) and to avoid copying information to multiple related articles or repeating information within articles. Doremo (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ježica discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rick Alan Ross

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The page is Rick Alan Ross. Ross himself is a long time advisor and advocate for content. His biography is defended by a group of editors, notably Ronz, Collect, Francis Schonken, and Jbhunley. The page now reads like resume for Ross, with a puff piece about his deprogramming career and advertisement of his current enterprise. But the subject of cult brainwashing and deprogramming is not accepted by scientific consensus. In a word, Ross is engaged in a pseudoscience. Ross was pleaded guilty to embezzling conspiracy, imprisoned for a year or so, paroled for 4 years, and later exonerated by a judge.[6] By vigilant reverts, the editors named above protect Ross's page from any mention of those facts. Thus Ross is enabled to use Wikipedia as an infomercial for his business as an expert on cult brainwashing and his commercial enterprise in "exit counseling". Editors from that group have stalked me through a series of related web pages and reverted my edits on related subjects.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Ronz

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

Probably best to just ask for Arbcom enforcement against Sfarney. Whatever policy issues there might be are obscured by a battleground mentality. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Collect

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


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


Note [7] Bishonen has issued an indefinite topic ban on Sfarney on this topic and related topics, pursuant to the ArbCom decisions concerning Biographies of Living Persons. Collect (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Francis Schonken

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
  • I'd be prepared to take part in this DRN if it can be on content, for instance the last two edits before this DRN board was notified (1st, 2nd), in view of the related content discussions at Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 7#Ross's theory of deprogramming and Talk:Rick Alan Ross/Archive 7#"Does any of these sources mention Ross?".
    • summary of that dispute: there's a lot of literature on "brainwashing" and "deprogramming" (a host of authors explaining their incompatible views on these topics), however very little reliable sources mentioning how the subject of the biography (Rick Alan Ross) relates to these contrasting views on these topics. As such there is very little material on these topics that can be used for inclusion in the biographical article, per WP:BALASPS. User:Sfarney (signing as "Grammar'sLittleHelper") was aware of the fairly recent talk page discussions in that context (see links above), yet decided to create a multi-paragraph section on the "tangent" in the biographical article, apparently based on nothing relating to Ross directly (see 1st diff above), which I reverted (2nd diff), based on the abovementioned recent talk page discussions. The Rick Alan Ross article should not be used for soapboxing on various theories (with a tenuous or non-existing link to the subject of the article) regarding the viability of "brainwashing" and "deprogramming". --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Making a comparison that might help Sfarney to see the difference: the biographical aricle on Gioachino Rossini indicates the composer as the inventor of the Tournedos Rossini, yet the biographical article can not be used as a soapbox for the vegetarian/veganist view that we shouldn't be eating Tournedos at all, nor should the biography go on a tangent regarding what official instances have written on the consumption of meat and its relation to obesity (FYI, a condition of the composer not even mentioned in his biography). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I seriously object to being called a friend of User:Rick Alan Ross/Rick Alan Ross, I'm not. The OP initiating this DRN should be adapted to reflect that fact, otherwise I'm out of this discussion.
  • In all other cases this should be rather at WP:AE with a serious boomerang for the initiator of this DRN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jbhunley

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

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

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

  • The talk page archives fast so the DRN volunteer ahould glance through the most recent archives [8] [9] to get an idea of what has been going on. JbhTalk 12:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: if Sfarney does not provide the specific content they wish to change - usually best done by diffs of the disputed edit but typing the proposed text here is fine - then there is nothing to discuss here. I have no problem escalating this to AE however Bishonen has already said she will take action the next time he violates BLP or pushes POV so I am inclined to leave the matter with her. As to the archiving I have no idea how to change that but the material exists in the linked archive and can be read there and no active topic will be archived so it seems a non-issue unless I am missing something.

    The edit which seems to have set this off is some mass of text about brainwashing [10] that does not mention the subject of the article at all and looks to be an attempt to rehash what was discussed here [11] but it has not been brought up here or on the article talk so who knows. @Sfarney: - propose specific edits or diffs of specific edits you wish to discuss. Until you do so I decline DR because there is no content to discuss here. JbhTalk 18:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the contested material is the edit I linked above, based on the "non-concise discussion" by Sfarney below. On that basis I will accept DR to discuss that content. JbhTalk 19:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

talk:Rick Alan Ross discussion

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

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

  • Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other parties of this filing at their talk pages. (Notification on the article talk page, which was provided, is not sufficient.) This case cannot be opened until the other editors are notified at their talk pages. Also, the subject of this article, User:Rick Alan Ross, was not included in the list of parties. I have included him. The filing party must notify the subject of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - I will respond at this time to a few comments by one of the parties. First, it isn't necessary to provide diffs of the edits that an editor tried to insert. This isn't a quasi-judicial forum like WP:ANI, and the discussion will be of proposed content, not of contributors. Second, the comment is made that the talk page is archived very fast, and the volunteer should read through the archives. Can the archiving of the talk page be slowed down by tweaking the parameters? However, the volunteer doesn't need to read through the archives, because the parties are normally expected to summarize what the content issues are. Third, the parties are reminded to comment on content, not on contributors. Fourth, participation in DRN is voluntary. If some of the parties don't want to participate, they don't have to do so. However, since the next step if DRN is declined or fails appears to be Arbitration Enforcement, participation is advised. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - Attention is called to the small banner, "Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Be civil and concise, even after the case is opened. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
When this discussion is opened by a volunteer, they will state that they are opening the case and will be the moderator, and will provide any necessary instructions. At this point, the case is not ready to be opened by a moderator because we are waiting for statements as to which of the editors are willing to participate in discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Non-concise discussion prior to opening of case Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This article should be in keeping with Wikipedia's definition of authorities and selection of material. Currently, the article cites Ross's professional accomplishments as though he were tuning pianos or treating plague victims:

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

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

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

    ==Scientific status of deprogramming==

    The practice of deprogramming depends on the doctrine that new religious movements (cults) use brainwashing (also called coercive persuasion, mind control, or thought control) on the cult members to persuade them to do and believe things they would not otherwise do. This brainwashing doctrine is the "linchpin" of the anti-cult movement.[6][7][8][9]

    Theories of brainwashing and of mind control were originally developed to explain how totalitarian regimes appeared to systematically indoctrinate prisoners of war through propaganda and torture techniques. These theories were later expanded and modified by psychologists including Margaret Singer and Philip Zimbardo to explain a wider range of phenomena, especially conversions to some new religious movements (NRMs). The suggestion that NRMs use mind control techniques has resulted in scientific and legal debate;[10] with Eileen Barker, James Richardson, and other scholars, as well as legal experts, rejecting at least the popular understanding of the concept.[11] In 1987, the American Psychological Association (APA) formally and forcefully rejected the APA's task force report on the subject (Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control), written primarily by Singer.[12][13] Singer herself characterized the APA's rejection as "a rejection of the scientific validity of the theory of coercive persuasion."[13]

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

    ... there has been until now a lack of any convincing scientific evidence which can be applied in a generalised form to show that involvement in a New Religious Movement has any destructive consequences for the psyche of the individual concerned. ... The fact that, in all the ensuing years, no one has succeeded in verifying beyond reasonable doubt any of these claims, has however, never been regarded as a reason to exonerate the groups in any way. ... Thus, up to the time of writing, there has not been one single successful, legal conviction of the Scientology Church, even though this group has come to be regarded as the most dangerous of the new religious organisations. ... The fact that even long-term investigations have as yet failed to produce the desired results continues to be ignored.[14]

References

  1. ^ "The Dark Web, Deep Web and Dark Net – Terminology Hell". Retrieved 9 February 2016.
  2. ^ "The Dark Web, Deep Web and Dark Net – Terminology Hell". Retrieved 9 February 2016.
  3. ^ Greenberg, Andy (19 November 2014). "Hacker Lexicon: What Is the dark web?". Wired. Retrieved 27 August 2015.
  4. ^ Egan, Matt (12 January 2015). "What is the dark web? How to access the dark web - How to turn out the lights and access the dark web (and why you might want to)". Retrieved 18 June 2015.
  5. ^ Wood, Jessica (2010). "The Darknet: A Digital Copyright Revolution" (PDF). Richmond Journal of Law and Technology. 16 (4): 15–17. Retrieved 25 October 2011.
  6. ^ Bromley, David G. (2014-07-01). Djupe, Paul A.; Olson, Laura R. (eds.). Encyclopedia of American Religion and Politics. Infobase Publishing. p. 34. ISBN 9781438130200.
  7. ^ Ofshe, Richard J. "Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change". www.culteducation.com. Retrieved 2016-02-25.
  8. ^ Oldenburg, Don (2003-11-21). "Stressed to Kill: The Defense of Brainwashing". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2016-02-25.
  9. ^ Gerboth, Betsy (July 12, 1990). "Fargoans undergo deprogramming". www.culteducation.com. Retrieved 2016-02-25.
  10. ^ Wright, Stuart (December 1997). "Media Coverage of Unconventional Religion: Any "Good News" for Minority Faiths?". Review of Religious Research. 39 (2): 101–115. doi:10.2307/3512176.
  11. ^ Melton, J. Gordon (10 December 1999). "Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory". CESNUR: Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved 5 September 2009. Since the late 1980s, though a significant public belief in cult-brainwashing remains, the academic community-including scholars from psychology, sociology, and religious studies-have shared an almost unanimous consensus that the coercive persuasion/brainwashing thesis proposed by Margaret Singer and her colleagues in the 1980s is without scientific merit.
  12. ^ Ciment, James (2015-03-04). Social Issues in America: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. p. 490. ISBN 9781317459712.
  13. ^ a b Beckford, James A.; Richardson, James T. (2003-09-02). Challenging Religion. Routledge. pp. 74–79. ISBN 9781134392049.
  14. ^ Usarski, Frank (2012-12-06). Cresswell, Jamie; Wilson, Bryan (eds.). New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response. Routledge. p. 238. ISBN 9781134636969.
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.

Eminata Group

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

Despite my efforts, the only response I received was:

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Ronz

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

Eminata Group discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been no discussion on the article talk page. There has been discussion on User talk:Ronz, but it appears to consist of one too long, difficult to read post by each editor. The filing party has not notified User:Ronz of this filing. I am not accepting or declining this case at this time. (It can't be accepted without notice to Ronz.) I am recommending that discussion go back to the article talk page. If discussion there is inconclusive, this noticeboard may be an appropriate venue in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Article in question was originally about Avoiding dangerous climate change (2005 conference). We already have Climate change mitigation about the main matter. In 2011 the article in question was changed to be about the general concept of climate change mitigation, only under a different name. At the AfD it was pointed out that the different name isn't that common. The suggestion everyone but the changer agreed to after this was pointed out at the AfD was to revert back to the version before the change and possibly rename the article, adding (2005 conference) after it. Since this is a very unorthodox situation at the AfD and it had no relation to normal procedures, it was closed as simply no concensus. It would also be incorrect to relist, as this has nothing to do with deletion. The changer's stance to keep the changes to the article is so absolute that I see no room for discussion with the changer, based on experience from the past dealing with similar situations.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked closing sysop for instructions on where to to discuss this further.

How do you think we can help?

Just say your word.

Summary of dispute by Coastwise

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

Summary of dispute by Mr. Magoo and McBarker

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

Summary of dispute by Tigraan

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

Summary of dispute by AnotherNewAccount

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

Summary of dispute by William M. Connolley

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

Summary of dispute by MaynardClark

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

Summary of dispute by SatansFeminist

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

Summary of dispute by Jsharpminor

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

Summary of dispute by Shritwod

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change 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:ResellerRatings

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

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

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

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

This is all well documented on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Techimo

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimately, companies routinely increase rates, and in the case of ResellerRatings, a b2b platform where consumers pay nothing and merchants optionally pay to participate, raising rates over time should be considered in the same light as any other businesses that adjust rates over time: largely immaterial to all except those few (in this case) directly impacted (of which, clearly ZeroShadows was, hence the heated emotional drive to insert the negative editorial commentary). Such "ordinary course of business" practices make for very uninteresting and immaterial content for such a notable encyclopedic reference as Wikipedia. For instance, there are dozens of articles about Netflix (b2c) raising rates for millions of people (consumers, in that instance) with a resultant stock price decline for a time, and none of that is even mentioned in the Wikipedia article save for a sentence or two such as "The price increase took effect immediately for new subscribers, but will be delayed for two years for existing members". Many customers "fumed" about the Netflix rate increase in 2011, but it was as irrelevant to Netflix's overall story as it is to ResellerRatings' overall 15 year history. Of note, there is no Criticism section in the Netflix page, despite quite a lot of press covering Netflix rate increases. No editor found that a Criticism section was warranted there: why is it warranted here? [1]

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

References

  1. ^ http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-07-13-netflix-customers-angry_n.htm

Summary of dispute by 166.170.37.25

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

Summary of dispute by 71.235.154.73

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

Talk:ResellerRatings discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been adequate talk page discussion. The other registered editor has been notified. The unregistered editors have not been notified. The filing party is responsible for notifying the unregistered editors as well as the registered editor. This thread was previously opened about a week ago, and then closed due to lack of response by the parties. When this case is opened, after proper notice, the moderator will need to be aware that the case may again need to be closed if there is no response. (Since participation is voluntary, the case can go forward with less than all of the parties.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean about the unregistered parties. They already have notifications on their talk pages. I guess you need me to notify them again. Done. I was in the hospital last week and could not participate. I'm here now and ready. ZeroShadows (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolving the Above Dispute

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

Hi Joel. I'm not sure what else you would like me to state. I've pretty much covered it in the dispute description. Basically, I think the ResellerRatings article is not well rounded. Other editors have, over the years, attempted to include data about the company in a "Criticism" type section, and regardless of the information, it's always been removed by Techimo. The latest edits are well sourced and neutral in that they describe criticisms of the company and the steps the company took to resolve them. All of this is thoroughly documented on the talk page. Thanks! ZeroShadows (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see the "Summary of dispute by Techimo" section above where I provided a detailed summary of my side.Techimo (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Note - Neither of the IPs has edited within the past month. One of them is blocked. The other one has probably shifted, which is one of the problems with unregistered editors. I will check to see whether there have been any recent edits by unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I am willing to resume moderator discussion subject to the restrictions mentioned on the talk page. Thank you for addressing my concerns and reopening the case. ZeroShadows (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2016 (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.

User talk:Lmmnhn

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I want to list total seats of district councils of HK in each of political parties in HK, as the meeting of district council is held by NOT ONLY elected seats, but ALSO Ex Officio seats (Rural Committee Chairmen) and Appointed seats. Listing total seats is done on legislative council of HK. However, Lmmnhn is just revert, revert and revert my edits.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

What is the point of listing ONLY elected seats, instead of total seats of district council of HK, as the meeting of district council is held NOT ONLY elected seats, but ALSO Ex Officio Member (Rural Committee Chairmen). Listing ONLY elected seats is very misleading to the readers. I have added Appointed seats according your request, but why you still revert???

How do you think we can help?

Hope you can judge whether my or Lmmnhn`s actions are correct.

Summary of dispute by Lmmnhn

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

User talk:Lmmnhn 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.

User talk:Exonerated_torturee

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Jytdog has taken it upon himself/herself to "welcome" me by belittling me, insulting me, and assuming the worst about my intentions. Instead of giving me a helpful recommendation about citing my sources, Jytdog deleted my work and has been filling my talk page with accusations and veiled threats. It's a horrible welcome. Jytdog's issue is related to the Pharmalogical torture page, but my issue is with Jytdog's lack of Wikipedia:Civility, and what seems to be a COI with regard to information about the USA being included on the page, and with badgering me on my user talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have flagged the article for neutrality and asked the user to stop being so harsh toward me.

How do you think we can help?

Have some unbiased editors from a non-aligned country look at the edits I made and make appropriate corrections to attribution. The issue could have been resolved by simply informing me that linking to a well-sourced Wikipedia article was not enough.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

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

User talk:Exonerated_torturee 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.

Peyton Manning

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The Peyton Manning article has cleaned of all references to the subject's sexual assault and PED scandals. This is clear NPOV violation and has been discussed extensively on both the article's talk page and on the NPOV noticeboard. This morning the NPOV discussion was closed by an admin who appeared to be accusing black people of "manufactur[ing]" the allegations against Manning. I have attempted to work with other editors to reintroduce at least some of the content in question back into the article, but very little progress has been made in this area.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The dispute has been extensively discussed both on the article's talk page and on the NPOV noticeboard without any sort of resolution.

How do you think we can help?

I would like the policy concerning the inclusion of well sourced controversial content to be made clear enough, so that that there is no doubt as to what should and should not be included.

Summary of dispute by DHeyward

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

Summary of dispute by Leo Bonilla

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

Ok, I'll paraphrase my last statement:

"Alright. I made a big review. First of all I apologize if I took side with anyone's opinion and it was libelous. Now let me report: this is a case when a part of an article POORLY WRITTEN creates dispute. There are parts which concern more about Al Jazeera's credibility than Manning's involvement in those issues (in part due to he is not the only athlete mentioned), at least for now. Currently, there is a part on Al Jazeera's page related to the documentary and the posteriors reactions to its publication; and by the way, the "Performance enhancing drugs allegations" title could be totally rewritten as "Mention in The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers documentary" whether in the 'controversies' or 'off the field section', or mention the event in his 2015 career year section (he gave an interview to ESPN talking about the issue) like it appears in Tom Brady's BLP with the Deflategate reference, as well as not write out on Manning's BLP parts which are included in AJ channels' pages. The part about media coverage of Manning's life MUST NOT be in the article as it concerns more the sources than the reports themselves, whichever relation Jim Nantz has with Manning should go at Nantz's BLP, and comparisons with Cam Newton's career coverage are JUST opinions which people can share or not. But I do believe the following facts should be included on Manning's article: the NFL, MLB and USADA investigations; why Manning hired Ari Fleischer; and the 911 call and the incident related. It's a considerable shorter recapitulation. Now let's talk about Jamie Ann Naughright. I think the incident related to her should be summarize with specific details of and related to the affidavit and not every version of the history, plus the 2000 Manning's autobiography reference and the posterior Naughright's sue for defamation (but no more than this specific fact) and the New York Daily News's publication. Now in that recapitulation wouldn't reduce the content in more than a 20% but I think would be more accurate than how it was. I HOPE I CAN HELP FOR THE CAUSE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED."

How can I make a draft copy about what I think it's ideal to add on Manning's BLP? Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Meatsgains

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

Summary of dispute by Cla68

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

Summary of dispute by Zetrock

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

Summary of dispute by Aquillion

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

Summary of dispute by Dsaun100

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

Summary of dispute by Bagumba

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

Summary of dispute by Mr Ernie

ParkH.Davis repeatedly makes BLP violations by referring to specific incidents as facts. These "scandals" were allegations. Nothing was ever proven. Just because news sources write about these events doesn't mean that they happened as alleged. That's the whole point of this dispute. We've told him repeatedly that he must refer to them as allegations. He has also been blocked for edit warring on this topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As a follow-up, there is no need for this case. The requester has been told numerous times he can insert these controversies. He has been instructed they should be called allegations and not written in Wikipedia's voice. Consensus was that they didn't need to be as long as they were. We erred on the side of caution and blanked the numerous violations so they can be reworked. Please close this, as it will just be a waste of time. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
One final note: ParkH.Davis took himself to WP:ANI [[12]]. No need for dispute resolution as it looks like there will be admin intervention. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been some discussion at the article talk page. There was then extensive discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard, which was then closed. The editors have been properly notified. As a result, this thread can be opened for discussion. As a result of the number of parties to this case, however, it might be more practical to file this at requests for formal mediation. I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time. Another volunteer moderator can open it, because the preliminary requirements appear to have been met. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 29 February 2016 (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.

Talk:Benjamin Disraeli

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

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

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

That is actually me - the person who raised the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.235.93 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SchroCat

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

Summary of dispute by Martinevans123

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

Summary of dispute by Tim riley

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

Talk:Benjamin Disraeli discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. It is just barely enough discussion. However, there were three problems with this filing. First, the filing party has not notified the other editors. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors. This case cannot be opened until the other editors are notified and have an opportunity to respond. Second, one of the editors was not included in the list of parties. I have added them, but the filing party will have to notify them. Third, the filing party is an unregistered editor. While unregistered editors do have the privilege of editing Wikipedia, their participation in ongoing discussions such as DRN may be problematic because IP addresses change. Since the filing party has used a name, why don't they just register it as a user name? Some DRN volunteers will not open a case that has unregistered editors as participants. Other DRN volunteers will not open a case that is filed by an unregistered editor. For those reasons, I strongly encourage the filing party to register an account and add their new account to the list of parties, and also to notify the other parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Closing notice: Unless the parties have been notified by the filing party by 23:13 UTC on February 27, 2016 (72 hours after the filing party's first edit after the foregoing note was posted), this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

• Hello! I tried to inform the parties about this dispute resolution request on the original discussion board, but it did not seem to work. I’ve sent a message to everyone on their talk pages now – hopefully I’ll get prompt replies. Kind regards, Dimitar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.16.1.254 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Here are a few rules. I expect every editor to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours, and to respond in a timely manner to any questions or requests for statements. I am still waiting for statements from the non-filing parties, so I expect them to make their statements in the next section. Please explain briefly what your issues are and how you do or do not want the article changed. Be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. Comments on contributors, or uncivil comments, may be hatted. Will each editor please make a brief opening statement? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The filing party is an unregistered editor who hasn't edited in 48 hours, probably because their IP address has shifted. They are required to make an opening statement, either from an IP address, or from a new registered account, and are very strongly advised to create a registered account. (It is very hard to do dispute resolution with unregistered editors, because their IP addresses shift.) If the filing party does not provide a statement within 48 hours stating that they are taking part in moderated discussion, either this case will be closed, or if the other editors have raised issues between each other, this case will continue without the filing party. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

First 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.

List of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix#Technology

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

SPA accounts are refusing to allow NPOV summary of the scandal itself, rather than the controversy surrounding it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have attempted to be WP:BOLD and to discuss on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Providing an NPOV from un-involved users.

Summary of dispute by User:Dumuzid

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

Summary of dispute by User:PeterTheFourth

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

List of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix#Technology 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_133&oldid=1084317100"