Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Lyoness

Lyoness

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

25 July 2013

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

Lyoness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I've been asked, by one of the editors involved in a dispute regarding Lyoness, to intervene in same. However, beyond issuing a single issue warning for 3RR to both parties, I don't consider myself able to participate in this matter, first of all because I know nothing about the issues, but also because there seem to be possible libel issues involved, etc.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Single issue 3RR warnings to the parties involved. "Disputed" tag on article.

How do you think we can help?

Possibly while some sort of arbitration is under way, reverting to NPOV version plus semi-protection for the article. Thanks.

Opening comments by Lyoness expert

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Dear volunteer,

Thank you for spending your valuable time on this matter. For a while now, I have been involved in the construction of an article on Lyoness, the world's largest shopping community. As persisting companies are a sensitive topic, most of my contributions to the article have revolved around keeping a balance between various opinions, while clearly stating (through references) where these opinions can be found. As you can see in the article, 99% of those opinions come from reputable, independent third party sources such as newspapers, government entities and television shows. However, with the development of the internet, blogs are getting more influential in these matters too. Therefore, in the 'Internet' section of the article, I have incorporated a reference to Mr David Brear and his blog (a widely accepted influential source in this field). The reference was simply built up as Mr Brear's opinion of Lyoness (clearly stated as a personal opinion) and a reference to his blog. Hence, the reference to Mr Brear was in no way used to purvey authority, but rather to provide the Wikipedia audience with yet another influential opinion on the company Lyoness, which is an essential part of the 'controversy' section of the article (the company has been under quite some scrutiny around the internet).

For a while now, LyoNewMedia has been making small edits to the article, usually with a somewhat misleading qualification provided in the edit summary (e.g. 'updated figures', while actually removing a few paragraphs). This, combined with the insistence to remove essential parts of the controversy section, make me doubt whether LyoNewMedia is an independent editor, rather than someone tied to Lyoness - which would be a violation of the Wikipedia guidelines. Consistently removing these important parts, without convincing argumentation or evidence that Mr Brear is indeed 'defaming living people' (quite a harsh statement, in my humble opinion), is in my humble opinion an act of vandalism which clashes with everything Wikipedia stands for.

I thank you sincerely for your time and effort,

Lyoness expert (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by LyoNewMedia

Regarding an edit on the Lyoness article which deleted a short passage, Lyoness expert asked LyoNewMedia to provide evidence for the claim that the linked blog that was used as the source is attacking and possibly defaming people. Therefore passages of the blog were posted on talk to prove the argument that attacking and possibly defamatory things are posted on the blog (for instance calling someone "self-appointed führer"). Lyoness expert replied that posting random sentences of the blog does not prove anything. From then it went back and forth. Another problem with the source is the fact that it is a personal blog and therefore not a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore it would be appropriate to delete the passage referencing the blog.

Thank you for your time

Discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Due to the urgency of dealing with a BLP issue and preventing its reoccurance, I partially responded to this at the article talk page and Lyoness expert then responded at my talk page:

(Copied from those locations.)

The blog mentioned in the removed discussion cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia, not because it may be defamatory, but rather because blogs of that nature simply cannot be used in Wikipedia as reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, see WP:SPS, and that is particularly true about controversial information such as this. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TransporterMan, I sincerely apologise for the trouble we made you go through and I respect your decision to deem the referenced blog as an 'unreliable source' according to the Wikipedia guidelines. However, I can somehow not wrap my head around the fact that you consider the usage of this blog, in the way it was done in my edit, as a 'reference'. Rather, it was clearly stated that Mr Brear is of this opinion - and this is the blog where he expresses this opinion (to prove that it is in fact his opinion). So, the blog was not used to prove a fact about Lyoness, but rather that a certain opinion exists. I think that simple, but essential distinction should cause it to be exempted from the guidelines you reference. Thanks again and have a nice day, Lyoness expert (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the question posed by Lyoness expert, above, everything in Wikipedia must, if challenged or likely to be challenged, must be supported by a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Inclusion in a reliable source is the test that Wikipedia uses, rather than a board of professional editors such as a paper encyclopedia will have, to determine if information is both important and reliable enough to be considered for inclusion here. (Why "considered for inclusion"? Because being present in a reliable source is the threshold for inclusion, not a guarantee of inclusion.) Wikipedia has decided via policy that personal blogs, along with other self published sources, are simply neither important nor reliable enough to be a reliable source, with a few exceptions which do not apply in this particular case. Because of the reliable source standard, there is information in the world which is Absolutely True and Urgently Important which cannot be included in Wikipedia because it is not reflected in a reliable source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.