Closed. An RFC is being used to resolve the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I am seeking your assistance in resolving a dispute regarding the portrayal of David Lammy's political role on Wikipedia. The issue arises from a misunderstanding of Lammy's constitutional position as a member of the British Parliament and the implications of labeling him solely as an "English politician."
Key points to consider:
Constitutional Role:
David Lammy holds a constitutional position as a Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom.
Referring to him solely as an "English politician" is misleading, as his political role transcends national boundaries and encompasses the entirety of the UK.
Identity:
While Lammy has expressed identification with his English heritage, he has also affirmed his British and European identities.
It is essential to accurately represent the complexity of his identity and political role on Wikipedia.
Proposed Compromise:
I have suggested a compromise to acknowledge both Lammy's English and British identities in the discussion section, but this has not been acknowledged or accepted by the opposing user.
I request your intervention to address this misunderstanding and ensure the accuracy and neutrality of Wikipedia's portrayal of David Lammy's political role.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The discussion has only been ongoing on the talk page for less than half. Jumping to DRN without giving time for any other editors to comment is just needless bureaucracy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe you meant to reply in this section. But you are right I had forgotten the earlier conversation, it was lost in other controversies in the page. Probably as you just dropped the discussion after a couple of replies, and have only now re-entered discussion after 5 months and three failed attempts to make the change you knew you didn't have consensus for while WP:LOUTSOCKing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 00:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Either way DRN is the sixth method described by WP:Dispute resolution, it involves a lot of time and investment by a third party. I would suggest some of the other methods described in WP: Dispute resolution before starting such a timesink. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 01:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
David Lammy discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by volunteer (Lammy)
The non-filing editor has declined to take part in moderated discussion. Moderated discussion is voluntary, and would probably not resolve the issue anyway. Advice on the subject is given in Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. That essay is not definitive, but basically provides that common sense should be used. British philosophy also stresses the importance of using common sense. Of the other options listed for dispute resolution, either discussion at WikiProject United Kingdom or a Request for Comments may be workable, if British common sense is used. I will close this dispute in about 24 hours unless either of the editors requests assistance in formulating a neutrally worded RFC.
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I used the same wording from previous RFC. The core of this dispute is putting personal views before what the references show and common standards used in other pages. I always thought references and following common standards were important. Erzan (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2024 (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.
Boeing E-6B Mercury
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Khieatt on 19:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC).
Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Boeing E-6 Mercury, only on a user talk page, and that discussion has has not been in complete paragraphs. Discussion should be on an article talk page, because sometimes third-party editors who are viewing the article talk page may have useful input. Discussion should continue for more than 24 hours, with at least two statements by each editor. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The page contains inaccurate information on the plane's specifications, which has been updated by the Navy via the Navy Fact File. The original source material (the 2019 Navy Fact File) is no longer active (the link goes to an error page). I have tried to update the information and the source link but user Binksternet repeatedly undoes the changes.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Binksternet and I have discussed the issue but cannot reach a resolution. He continues to revert to the 2019 version of the fact file, which is no longer accurate. The plane's specs have changed due to modifications that have been made to the aircraft.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Help moderate the discussion with Blinksternet and approve the changes and updated source link.
Summary of dispute by Binksternet
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Boeing E-6B Mercury 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.
2024 F1 Academy season
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by LouisOrr27 on 22:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC).
Closed due to lack of notice. It is now 48 hours after I said that the filing editor had not notified the other editors. The instructions state that the filing editor should notify the other editors. This case is now closed. Continue discussion on the article talk page. Do not edit-war. If discussion is unsuccessful, consider the use of a neutrally worded RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
In the section about the entries of the season, there is a dispute about weather the teams should be listed in alphabetical order of the team name or numerical order of the drivers.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Offer an opinion on the matter and discus it with the users involved.
Summary of dispute by MSport1005
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Cerebral726
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2024 F1 Academy season discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - Discussion at the talk page has been in progress for less than 24 hours. Sometimes continued discussion resolves the issue. Waiting for discussion to continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2024 (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.
Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Max19582 on 19:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC).
Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. It appears that the discussion has only been by edit summaries, which are not real discussion. Discuss on the article talk page, Talk:Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz; that's what article talk pages are for. Do not edit-war. If discussion does not resolve the issue, a Third Opinion can be requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
In the article's lede, I edited the minister's title to be capitalized, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Positions,_offices,_and_occupational_titles as it denotes the title, not the description. The change was reverted by User:Egeymi, who claimed the title should be kept in lowercase (they reverted it, so "Sienkiewicz has served as Minister of Culture and National Heritage" became "Sienkiewicz has served as minister of culture and national heritage" again). As I can see, the general consensus is that the titles of Polish ministers are capitalized - Barbara Nowacka, Adam Szłapka, Borys Budka, Adam Bodnar, among others. That's also how the official government website capitalizes it: [1].
We tried to discuss it in my talk page, but that was to no avail. The user kept on misquoting the policy, telling me to "read it carefully" instead.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please let us know which formatting would be better.
Summary of dispute by Egeymi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz 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.
Closed as premature and inadequately filed. There does not appear to have been any discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Resume discussion on an article talk page or at WikiProject Eurovision. A new request can be filed if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, and if the editors are notified, but discussion is necessary before requesting assistance here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There is an ongoing dispute about the deletion of several important details from Eurovision pages, not just on the location of the dispute, but in most articles related to the contest, including, but not limited to: all editions since 1956, individual country's participations, spin-offs, national finals, singers, producers, writers, etc. This has led to the deletion of individual facts, notes, spokepersons, etc. However, they are attempting to delete the Language column from the articles, depriving users from one of the most important aspects of the Eurovision Song Contest. Furthermore, they're abusing their power by bullying another users and writing hurtful comments in the discussion.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By stopping the arbitrary deletion of information contained in other language's articles which can harm the reputation of the English version's usefulness for non-Eurovision fans.
Summary of dispute by Sims2aholic8
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Grk1011
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by IvanScrooge98
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ImStevan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Eurovision Song Contest 2024 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.
East African Community
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jhpratt on 05:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC).
Closed due to lack of notice. The filing editor has not notified the other editors, 48 hours after being advised to notify them. Notification of the other editors is not just a courtesy but a requirement. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I believe there is sufficient secondary sources to indicate that Somalia is a member of the East African Community (if not necessarily a full member). Other users are relying largely on primary sources (to my understanding against Wikipedia policy), which are not as conclusive.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
A decision as to whether Somalia is a member on the East African Community at present time is the primary decision that needs to be made. As the situation is not 100% clear, a suggestion on how the ambiguity can be conveyed in the article is not necessarily a bad idea either.
Summary of dispute by jhpratt
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Chipmunkdavis
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Danlaycock
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 92.236.211.53
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Ydecreux
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
East African Community discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Notification of the other editors is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2024 (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.
Concerning the subjects nationality, he was born in Germany (which according to this doesn't entitle you to German nationality, we've all moved on from this a year ago). But where it gets tricky is he was raised in Georgia and claims to be a dual-citizen of Spain. But Spain doesnt allow dual citizenship for Georgian citizens. He fights out of Spain, wheres he's lived since he was 15 (so I vote that per MOS:NATIONALITY only list nationalities where subject established themselves). While others say he must be Georgian, because he walks out to compete under a Georgian flag. All of which is complicated by the fact that you can find sources that call him 'Georgian', 'Spanish', 'Spanish-Georgian', 'German-born Spanish-Georgian', etc.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Either tell us to use all, none or one of the nationalities
Summary of dispute by Cassiopeia
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Base on MOS:NATIONALITY guidelines, the subject current resident and citizen where he was notable should be on the LEAD section which is Spain and not other country where he was born (Germany doesnt allow dual citizenship) or Georgia where he lived from 7-15 y/o where Spain does have dual citizenship with Georgia. We have a lot of cases in mixed martial arts fighter whereby editors keep on changing subject countries in lead based on their ethnicity/bloodline/heritage/where their parents or which country(ies)/the whole world that the subject wanted to represent and not based on where they were born or where they lived when they are notable as per Wikipedia MOS:NATIONALITY guidelines. Cassiopeiatalk 09:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Subject confirmed that he does not have Spanish citizenship:
So as per wikipedia guidlines he should be listed as Georgian only Caucasian Man (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by DrakeXper
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ilia Topuria doesn't have Georgian nationality. He officially has Spanish nationality and represents, as a UFC fighter, both Georgia and Spain.[1]
According to MOS:NATIONALITY, I think the correct way to resolve this discussion is:
We affirm Topuria is of Spanish nationality, with mention that he is of Georgian origin/ethnicity.
We eliminate nationality from the equation as it is controversial, and simply state on the lede that he is "a Georgian and Spanish professional mixed martial artist..." omitting the mention of "nationality" in the infobox.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Both Georgia and Spain don't allow dual citizenship to each other, yet all the sources available claim that he has both Georgian and Spanish citizens. MOS:Nationality says that when there's a controversial or unclear cases nationality can be omitted, as shown in an example of Nicolaus Copernicus under MOS:Nationality. Therefore this(taking out Georgian or Spanish from the heading page) is one of the solution we can use to resolve this dispute.--Lemabeta (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Or an ethnicity can play a deciding factor as passport is unclear and be written as Georgian, until further clarification. Lemabeta (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Caucasian Man
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Every source claims he holds dual citizenship.
If we go with wikipedia guidelines, even if he only held Spanish citizenship, his origin is relevant as he became known as a Georgian fighter and represents his country of origin. That's what the wikipedia guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context say:
"Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability"
Due to the reasons mentioned above, that "unless" is relevant here and he must be listed as a Georgian, granted.
Thus, we can list the subject as "Georgian" or "Georgian and Spanish". Can't live "Georgian" out.
Summary of dispute by BasilE99
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by FCBWanderer
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by WikiJuan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Gsfelipe94
Topuria should be listed as Georgian and a relevant mention for him being based on Spain should also be added. The matter of fact is that he's chosen to officially represent Georgia in UFC related issues (walkout gear and official info on the main media), but that doesn't stop him from also carrying his Spanish roots. We've had several fighters do it before and I'm pretty this would not be an issue if he was born there instead of Germany. What Cassiopeia brings to the table is an unidimensional view (just like she brought up when we had issues changing fighters' last names when they got married - luckily that's not an issue anymore), so I don't think we should list him as Spanish based on that. A good example for it is Diego Lopes who is a Brazilian fighter based in Mexico. We don't list him as Mexican based on what Cassiopeia said. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Gsfelipe94 I suggest you to read MOS:NATIONALITY. It is not about what country he wants to represents or his root. As per changing fighter names of the articles, I still stand by WP:COMMONNAME name to change the article names but not just because a subject married and automatically the subject name is changed, due to recent marriage and a small hand full of sources against 5 years of sources, as many editors (especially MMA editors do not understand the Wikipedia guidelines and do not care about Wikipedia guidelines) as they just want to edit which what seems to be reasonable of their standard but not per Wikipedia guidelines. It is tired and takes a lot of my time just to keep the guidelines stand against those editors who does not care about the guidelines - remember, after all this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia have guidelines. Cassiopeiatalk 00:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you. Wikipedia has tools for situations like this, and one of them is MOS:NATIONALITY. DrakeXper (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
@Gsfelipe94, the example you have given with Diego Lopes is not good for this case.
Ilia Topuria officially only has Spanish nationality even though he is of Georgian origin/ethnicity. According to MOS:NATIONALITY, It should mention that he is of Spanish nationality or, in the worst case, avoid mentioning his nationality to avoid getting into controversies.
But aside from all this, he declares himself Spanish and Georgian,[2] and the official UFC account uses both countries (Georgia and Spain) as representative countries.[3]DrakeXper (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The Diego Lopes example was related to the subject current resident and citizen where he was notable as an unidimensional view. I'm not going to dwell on the other things because every single time we had those situations regarding names it was 1 against everyone else on the same type of behavior and the same arguments above where used (funny that in the end all the articles' titles were moved).
And your example of a tweet wasn't good as well. Plenty of other fighters will fall into the same category (for example when they had Cain Velasquez with both the US and Mexico flags). I'd like to know where is the source that shows he only has Spanish nationality. That's the type of thing that ends discussions, though there's none of it here. It's just a bunch of suppositions as of now. If there's solid evidence of his nationality, then obviously everything else won't matter. I have no agenda whatsoever to list him as Georgian or Spanish. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
We know that he arrived in Spain when he was 15 years old, and that he became naturalized Spanish.
"The Georgian by birth (here means origin/blood, etc) and nationalized in Spain [...]"[4]
"[...] the 25-year-old young man of Georgian parents and naturalized Spanish.[5]
Although sometimes It is stated that he is of dual nationality, actually, due to the context, what they are referring to is that he feels equally Georgian and Spanish. In the legal dimension, we know that Spain does not admit dual nationality with Georgia.
In any case, and most importantly, if the nationality is way too controversial, according to MOS:NATIONALITY, we can omit "nationality" (from the infobox for example) and just say that he is a Georgian and Spanish fighter. Saying that Topuria is just a Georgian working or "based on Spain" is frankly quite incorrect in my opinion. DrakeXper (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the latter would be incorrect. I believe that the option of removing "nationality" would solve most of the problems or say that he's Spanish with Georgian heritage. What's confusing is that everything else is that he's always represented Georgia on his fight kits and the fact that he was born in a neutral country to that discussion makes matter worse.
Like I said, Velasquez was 100% American, but he used to represent Mexico in several fights and was always listed as American at the stats. Clearance on this would be great to updated List of UFC Champions for example. As of now we have him listed as Georgian, but based on those arguments, he could be shifted to Spanish. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by SpyroeBM
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I suggest that the nationality be omitted from the lede outright, there are no reliable and independent sources (using this list as a guideline) that state Topuria's nationality status, and I would be wary of Spanish sources due to bias unless they have been vetted by other editors. A solution to his would be to follow the lede format used by the editing team over at the football/soccer section of Wikipedia for players of dual or unknown nationality (e.g. Alphonso Davies, Diego Costa, Pepe and etc.), where the nationality part can be explained in a different paragraph. For a UFC related example, Khamzat Chimaev nationality was a big talking point, where we had some editors (and for the sake of honesty myself included) go under the assumption that he was only Swedish and should be listed as such; albeit it was later revealed that he never acquired said citizenship and had only been representing Sweden. Due to the precedence of this issue, I suggest for neutrality and for the sake of not being controversial, the nationality should not be made a focal point in the lede. SpyroeBM (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Upon further research (a total of 5 minutes), Topuria's nationality has been highlighted as the following; Sky Sports and Jack Baer of Yahoo News has listed Topuria as a Spaniard[6][7] while the editing team at ABC News Australia and Marc Raimondi of ESPN highlight that he is a Georgian living and training in Spain, with special attention to Raimondi's quotation as "Topuria was born in Germany to parents of Georgian descent. His family moved back to the Republic of Georgia when he was young then later to Alicante, Spain. Topuria lives and trains in Spain -- his nickname is "El Matador" -- but also represents Georgia."[8][9] With the ambiguity of his nationality sourced with material vetted on Wikipedia source list, his nationality should be explained in a separate paragraph, while I stand by my original point that the lede should not include nationality. SpyroeBM (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Ilia Topuria discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)
I will open this case for preliminary discussion, for the purpose of starting a neutral Request for Comments to resolve the matter of the nationality or nationalities to list for the subject. This case involves a contentious topic, because it involves nationalities in Eastern Europe, which includes all of those countries that were under Soviet domination in the late twentieth century. For this reason, we will use DRN Rule D, so that by agreeing to the rule, the editors have received notice of contentious topic procedures. Do the editors agree that they want moderator assistance, which will consist mostly of formulating an RFC? What does each editor say should be listed as the nationality of the subject? Are there any other article content issues?
Robert McClenon (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)
First statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)
Apparently some of you didn't read my zeroth statement, which said that we will be using DRN Rule D, or you read it but didn't read the rules, or you read the rules and decided not to agree to the rules. Read the rules again if you want to use this noticeboard. The rules say not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. You are to answer questions from the moderator (me) and address your answers to the moderator and the community. I will collapse any further back-and-forth discussion, and I may (at my discretion) close this case, in which case you will be able to continue back-and-forth discussion that is not getting anywhere. So read and follow the rules.
If you want assistance, I will ask questions in order to formulate a neutrally worded Request for Comments. So my first question is whether the content disagreement is about the infobox, or the lede sentence, or both. There should not be an argument about the body of the article, because the body of the article should explain in sufficient detail. My second question is: What do you want listed in the infobox as his nationality? My third question is: What do you want stated in the lede sentence as his nationality?
This case involves a contentious topic, because it involves nationalities in Eastern Europe, which includes all of those countries that were under Soviet domination in the late twentieth century.
Fourth, are there any other article content issues?
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Answer to:
First question: Both
Second question: Either eliminate the "nationality" section of the infobox, or mention both (Georgian and Spanish)
Third question: Maintain the claim that he is "Georgian and Spanish", and remove the current unnecessary and controversial claim that as a UFC fighter only represents Georgia.
Fourth question: There isn't as far as I can tell. DrakeXper (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)
Second statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)
It is not clear that we need an RFC. It appears that we may have agreement that the lede sentence should say that he is a Georgian fighter living in Spain, and that the infobox should list his nationality as Georgian and Spanish. If not, what does anyone else want the lede paragraph and the infobox to say? If an editor has a different opinion, then we probably do need an RFC, and, if so, please state what else the choices should include when I put together the RFC.
Are there any other article content issues?
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
this came out today, where he says (in Spanish) that he doesnt have Spanish nationality, so I change my stance and say we all drop it and list him as Georgian. Nswix (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Exactly like Khamzat Chimaev when we thought he had Swedish citizenship but turned out he didn't. So yes, based on Wikipedia guidelines, we can remove Spanish altogether and list him as Georgian. I agree. Caucasian Man (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)
Third statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)
Is there agreement that he should be listed as Georgian, or do we need an RFC? If you have not already said that he should be listed as Georgian, please answer how you think he should be listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)
Fourth statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)
If no one disagrees, I will close this case as Resolved, and we will have agreed that we will list him as Georgian. If there is disagreement, please state it below, and there will be an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Please look at the draft RFC at Talk:Ilia Topuria/RFC on Nationality . Does anyone have any comments about the draft RFC before it is moved to the talk page and activated? Please do not enter your statements at this time, because this is a draft until it is moved and activated.
Does anyone have any questions or comments?
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)
India
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by BhandupAamche on 07:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed. There were various problems with this filing. However, it isn't necessary to explain them in detail, because the filing editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The issue is actually about mass deletion of India's train pages, preferably-Shatabdi, Jan Shatabdi, Tejas, Rajdhani, Duronto, Humsafar, Uday, Vande Bharat, Antyodaya, Amrit Bharat, AC Express which are as good as a railway information website providing info of their timings, coaches etc in every pages. Rather making seperate pages of each service, one can make all collective services of those specific trains in one table similar to Vande Bharat Express *Services* section.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The resolution should be that to permanently delete all the Shatabdi, Rajdhani, Tejas, Duronto, Uday, Antyodaya, Humsafar, Jan Shatabdi, Vande Bharat, Amrit Bharat, AC Express service articles and place like table form adding all services just like done in vande bharat service section removing all the links while placing their table form.
Summary of dispute by Arnav Bhate
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MPGuy2824
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
India discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Sorry to scurry in before a volunteer does, but could you please explain how the "one table" solution—as I understand it—solves the underlying problem of Wikipedia not being a directory? Your notion that Wikipedia is "as good as a railway information website providing info of their timings, coaches etc" is part of the problem. It simply does not seem like encyclopedic information, and you don't seem to be claiming that it is encyclopedic, either. Remsense诉 07:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Administrator note Filer has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I'll leave DRN regulars to resolve this thread by whatever process they normally use. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:40, 2 March 2024 (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.
Draft:Tristan Tate
– New discussion.
Filed by Mr vili on 03:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I'm contesting the refusal to move a Wikipedia article about Tristan Tate to the main namespace, arguing that he meets notability criteria through significant media coverage, his accomplishments as a kickboxing champion, his reality TV appearance, and his extremely high profile criminal case.
Despite presenting various sources to establish his notability independently of his brother Andrew Tate, editor PARAKANYAA disputes the reliability and sufficiency of these sources, labeling many as unreliable and not indicative of standalone notability. My suggestion to resolve the issue through a community "Articles for Deletion" (AfD) discussion has been met with resistance, leading to a deadlock over the article's eligibility for mainspace, prompting me to seek dispute resolution to evaluate the article's merit for inclusion based on Wikipedia's notability standards.
I have done research to find notable sources with WP:SIGCOV, which have all referenced him in significance
The Independent (UK)
The Hindustan Times
Essentially Sports
Sidekick Boxing
Sportsbrief
Sportsrush
Accumulate.com.au
BBC News
Reuters
The Chess Drum
Various Romanian news outlets
Storm Gym
MoneyMade.io
And so many more sources that you can find via a simple google search
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Ideally, I would like the article to be moved to mainspace and immediately go through an AfD to settle the matter.
Summary of dispute by PARAKANYAA
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I stand by my opinion that the sources that primarily address Tristan Tate are unreliable or passing mentions. What does address him in depth is solely in reference to the crime case his brother is involved in. The purpose of AfC is to approve articles into main space that the reviewer perceives as having a greater than 50% chance at surviving at AfD: I see virtually no chance this would. Also, I wasn't the first person to decline the draft and I didn't reject it, so he could have simply asked someone else (who would have likely said the same thing). This feels unnecessary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Robert McClenon
First, DRN is not a forum for disputes over the acceptance of drafts. They can be discussed at the AFC Help Desk or the Teahouse. Second, I cannot act as a moderator or mediator in this dispute, because I am involved, having previously commented on the draft. I observed that there was a history of sockpuppetry about drafts and articles about Tristan Tate, and that a reviewer should check whether edits to the drafts were made by sockpuppets or by good-faith editors. Third, I am willing to ignore the rule that drafts should only be accepted if the reviewer thinks that there is more than a 50% chance of surviving AFD, because the current editor is proposing that the draft be moved into article space for the purpose of a deletion discussion. It is my opinion that the interests of the encyclopedia will be advanced by a deletion discussion. So, if the filing editor wants to have a deletion discussion, and resubmits the draft for review, I will accept the draft so that it can be nominated for deletion, which will resolve the dispute.
Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I completely agree with this assessment. I believe there is zero risk in moving the draft into mainspace for the purpose of undergoing an AfD. I am not attached with the outcome, but to say it has "virtually no chance" it would survive is somewhat absurd and biased.
I will resubmit the article for review Mr Vilitalk 23:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
User:Mr vili - The article has been accepted, and is now in article space, so that there can be a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon can we archive/close this dispute as it is now going through AfD which should be the final step in this process. Mr Vilitalk 11:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Tristan Tate discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Closed as premature. The discussion on the article talk page has not been in progress for 24 hours. Sometimes continued discussion is useful. Also, the filing editor has not notified the other editors. Please resume discussion at the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive after 24 hours, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I'm adding info into the article in a serie of edits and then it gets reverted. Instead of discussing with me what's wrong in a polite and copperative way my edits just reverted captured as disruptive or unconstructive.
This article is about videogame, I'm adding the new info about future remaster and also about user scores from Steam statistics, why is it disruptive?
I tried to change wording several times, found another sources, but yet, we here and the only thing that this user is said to me that my English is not correct, he has no time and my edits will be reverted anyway. Without explanation what exactly is uncorrect? My info is wrong or what? It's nice that you have no time, but you found your time clicking revert.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Is it normal to revert ALL edits at once just calling them disruptive while I'm only was going to update the info and add some sourced critics? Why can't one user just fix the grammar mistakes if he sees instead of reverting? He reverting the version written in 'perfect English' but with outdated info! What is the sense in this? I think these reverts are disruptive, not my edits!
Summary of dispute by Waxworker
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MrGoldenfold007
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Age of Mythology discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Discussion was only opened a few minutes ago at Talk:Age of Mythology--editors should maybe attempt to hash things out there first before bringing to DRN. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:51, 3 March 2024 (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.
Montacute House
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by A.D.Hope on 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC).
Closed as resolved. After discussion, it has been agreed to use a small infobox that will not be collapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The infobox of Montacute House is currently partially collapsed. I believe that it should not be based on MOS:COLLAPSE, which states that 'collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading.' It additionally states that 'a few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed details' and that 'if information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all.' I do not believe that either of these passages apply to this infobox, as the Template:Infobox historic site is used on many similar articles and, as far as I'm aware, this article, Little Moreton Hall, and (until recently) Rufford Old Hall are the only cases in which the infobox has been partially collapsed. This suggests an informal consensus that the collapsed parameters are not generally considered infrequently accessed or trivial.
Other editors have opposed this, preferring to keep the infobox collapsed. I won't speak for them, but I believe their positions are largely based on this 2009 discussion, in which a collapsed infobox was a compromise.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Clarification on how the MOS should be applied in this case would be helpful.
Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Murgatroyd49
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Johnbod
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by KJP1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Unproductive, time-consuming and divisive edit wars over infoboxes have been ongoing since I joined in 2007. The MoS says, "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". The local consensus agreed at Montacute House, to use a collapsed infobox, has prevailed for 15 years. User:A.D.Hope's determination to overturn that consensus, pursued here, here, and now here, would re-ignite, rather than end, that debate, as we would then revert to the 2009 argument over whether to have an infobox at all. I have no wish to personalise this content dispute, but the filer's actions here follow a pattern, which has relevance. Examples include: Royal standards of Canada, forfeited honours, the Cornish flag and images of Essex. In each case, the issue is predicated on an interpretation of MoS, but in each case, the behaviour displayed is a determination to gain their point, and a refusal to acknowledge other views/interpretations. My suggested resolutions are that the prevailing consensus at Montacute House continues, and that the filer reflect on whether raising repeated RfCs, or continuing with their high-quality content contributions, is of greater benefit to Wikipedia's users. KJP1 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
If you had no wish to personalise this content dispute then you should not have written the second half of your comment. Your remarks are uncharitable, and do not show that I refuse to acknowledge other views or interpretations. To give a single example, you should note that I was open to other image options at Talk:Essex#Infobox images, and that I went to some effort to reconcile with Rupples after a misunderstanding.
In any case, this dispute is about Montacute, not me. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the guidance suggests we don't engage in a back-and-forth, but I'll leave that to the volunteer who picks this up. KJP1 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The guidance also states that you should 'comment on content, not contributors', but all three comments so far have contained personal comments about me. I hope you can understand why that would be difficult, but you're right that it goes against the guidance to reply.
I will disengage, but I'd like to note that I still have a great deal of respect you as an editor. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by AdamBlack89
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I really can’t be arsed to play with bad losers! This has been discussed ‘ad nauseam’ elsewhere. AdamBlack89 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by EPEAviator
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by The Lady Catherine de Burgh
Oh! How nice of you all to think of me, I don’t believe anyone has contacted me since poor Benito died in 1945. Such a charming man, did you know him too? So misunderstood! Now what is it you all want to discuss? I do charge for public comments. My nephew can send payment details if you care to enquire. I accept most credit cards, but cash is always nice if you have it. You see this is where the poor dear Phelips at Montacute House went so sadly wrong, they took their eye off the finances. Then, they let in that dreadful pompous Curzon man, with all his ‘sinning on tiger skins With Elinor Glyn? Or erring with her on some other fur?’ Well, it’s not good for people, they get hairs in their crevices and whatnots and they end up, wasting their time, on pages like this. So, I suggest you all get outside in the fresh air and go fishing or stalking, or even ratting, and do something useful and stop bothering very poor and defenceless old ladies such as myself! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I didn’t even read the original dispute (saw yr name on the left after being summoned for another thread), but we need more bubble-popping stuff like this. This sort of thing would be very productive in areas like, say, American politics.
I objected to the removal of the infobox in 2009, and accepted the collapsed version as a compromise with those who did not want it included at all. I continue to support including the information provided in the infobox for those that wish to be able to access this information quickly.— Rodtalk 09:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Montacute House discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Montacute House)
I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two editors request a moderator, and agree to DRN Rule A. Some editors have not replied yet, and should reply to this statement if they wish to participate in discussion. Some editors have declined to take part in discussion. (We will not pay anyone for their opinion. Paid editing is discouraged in Wikipedia.) Two editors have correctly quoted two of the rules in DRN Rule A, so I will not repeat the rules, but I will ask the editors to state that they agree to the rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article in the encyclopedia, so the first step is to identify the scope of the content disagreement. I understand that one of the issues has to do with the infobox. We can discuss infobox issues and any other article content issues. Each editor who wishes to take part in this discussion is asked to make an introductory statement, which should state what they want to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change).
Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Montacute House)
Robert, to confirm, I'd be pleased for you to pick this up, and I will make every effort to abide by the requirements. Assuming that the filer is too, and I think they are, you have your necessary two editors. I think the dispute can be summarised as:
(1) Does MoS, or other policy/guidance/convention, preclude the use of a collapsed infobox, as currently in use at Montacute House, or is such a collapsed infobox an acceptable, article-specific, compromise which can legitimately be agreed by involved editors?
(2) I do think that a determination on the above should also include a consideration of next steps, that is: if a collapsed infobox cannot be used, should it be replaced by a full infobox, or by no infobox? My concern is that, unless we cover this point, we are back in the 2009 impasse to which the collapsed infobox was the resolution. KJP1 (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
p.s. I don't want to prolong/complicate this discussion, but input from a user who actually understands how infoboxes work on various technologies, might be useful. I'm a numpty on this issue but, when I try Montacute House on my mobile devices, iPad, iPhone and android phone, I get the collapsed infobox on opening. But when, as an example, I try Cragside, which has an uncollapsed infobox, I get the uncollapsed IB on the iPad and iPhone, but a collapsed IB, labelled "Quick Facts", on my android phone? I've no idea why, but I'm sure I've read that the majority of Wikipedia readers use mobile devices so it might be helpful to properly understand their experience. KJP1 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I can also confirm that I'll abide by the rules, and I'm happy you've taken on the moderation, Robert. I agree with KJP1's points, and don't have anything further to add at the moment. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Montacute House)
I have read the background of this dispute, and I am changing the rules to DRN Rule D, because this is a dispute about an infobox, and infoboxes are a contentious topic, as found by the ArbCom in the second infobox case. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. You probably knew that, but it requires restating, because some editors are not civil in infobox discussions. It appears that this dispute has been simmering for fifteen years.
On the one hand, I see nothing in either the MOS or the ArbCom decisions that says that a collapsed infobox may be used as a compromise. On the other hand, I see nothing in either the MOS or the ArbCom decisions that says that a collapsed infobox may not be used as a compromise. It seems to me like the most unsatisfactory compromise, used because it makes all of the parties equally unhappy. I am asking each editor to state whether they think that the article should or should not have an infobox, if those are the only two choices. (A collapsed infobox is not a choice for this purpose.) If this dispute cannot be resolved by discussion, it will be resolved by a Request for Comments. It does not appear that there has been an RFC. It appears that in 2009 normal discussion led to an impasse, but with no attempt to use an RFC to bring in additional editors followed by formal closure. So please state your opinion as to whether there should be an infobox. These statements will be preliminary to an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Montacute House)
On balance I would support an infobox, as, although not universally used, it's become common practice to have one in similar articles and I do believe that a summary of information such as the location, building phases, architectural style, and the builder is useful. It isn't essential that the article has one, however.
It may be tricky to attract enough attention to an RfC. Despite the current normal discussion having been open for nearly a month and being publicised, both it and the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:COLLAPSE have failed to attract many outside editors. I'm not against an RfC by any means, but it may not be fruitful unless it does have a wider participation.
If it's allowed, I'd be interested to if you have any thoughts on how MOS:COLLAPSE might apply in this case. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Given that choice, I would rather not have an infobox, but that is not really what this dispute is about. I would (and did) rather reluctantly accept having an infobox of reasonable size, complying with WP:INFOBOX, and only containing the key information that readers are likely to be interested in:"keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". This emphatically does not include 8 lines each on the "Listed Building – Grade I" and "National Register of Historic Parks and Gardens" listings, including the day of the months in respectively 1961 and 1984 when the registrations happened, and the two registration numbers. Not to mention the registered name, which in each case is, amazingly, "Montacute House". This cruft should not be in the infobox at all, but near the bottom of the text, probably in a footnote. The registrations should have a line each in the infobox, if there must be one. The collapsed infobox was a compromise, which, despite the old consensus being re-affirmed in recent discussions, A.D.Hope has been completely intransigent in refusing to accept. Wikipedia needs to decide whether it is an encyclopaedia or a database. The situation has I think got worse since 2009, when the gardens scheme had not been added to the box (or most similar houses). Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
If it were a personal choice, I would include an infobox. The articles I have taken to FAC, from broadly Start level, all include one. But I recognise that this view is not universally accepted. Therefore, for FA articles I have worked on at FAR where the original editors did not include one, e.g. Belton House, I have not imposed one. My position is thus to respect the views of the main contributing editors. Where I am that main contributing editor, I have one. Where I am not, and the intention of those that are is not to include an IB, I don't. This leads to my concern regarding an RfC. This will almost certainly have one of two outcomes. Either, as A.D.Hope suggests, it will attract little interest and be inconclusive. Or it will create another virulent and divisive time-sink, like this, or many, many other examples...and be inconclusive. We will not resolve the pro/anti Infobox debate here, because it is not capable of resolution. My own view is that we should therefore accept that there are differing, and equally valid, views as to the value of infoboxes, (see the two comments above), recognise that they are actually pretty unimportant in terms of the overall quality of an article, and to have policies/guidance that accommodate this divergence of view, including the option of a collapsed infobox. We have 6.7 million articles on Wikipedia, of which 6,437 are Featured Articles. We have to accept that there is more than one way to write a good one. KJP1 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Montacute House)
Some editors have expressed concerns that an RFC will not be adequately participated in, but that it will be a divisive timesink. I don't know of another way to resolve the infobox dispute over this article, which has been going on since 2009. Do the editors have another suggestion for how to resolve this ongoing disagreement? If the editors want me to choose one of the choices, either an infobox or no infobox, I will not make that choice. DRN is not content arbitration. I am again asking the editors to identify any other content issues that they wish to discuss, besides the infobox. If the pro-infobox editors wish to resolve the dispute, they can agree that the article does not need an infobox. If the anti-infobox editors wish to resolve the dispute, they can agree that the infobox summarizes content and is useful for casual readers. If an editor is negative about an RFC on an infobox, they can propose an alternate solution to the controversy, or can withdraw their "side" from discussion.
I have read the guideline on collapsing, and I do not see collapsing an infobox listed as a compromise between pro-infobox and anti-infobox factions. Evidently at least some editors think that the status quo of a collapsed infobox is undesirable. Any editor who does not want an RFC is invited to offer an alternative. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Second comment by KJP1. With the aim of trying to find a compromise, would a pared-back, un-collapsed, infobox be acceptable to those who would actually prefer not to have one at all, while including the "essential" detail, Grade I, Listed park, that those who favour an IB want? I'm envisaging something like the below. Sorry it makes a bit of a mess of the page. All of the "important detail/bureaucratic cruft" (take your pick!), listing numbers etc., could then go in a prose section. KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Robert - not wanting to breach the rules by a back-and-forth conversation, but just for clarity, my position on this article, if I had to chose between having an IB and not having an IB, would be not. This is because the main contributing editor - User:Giano, in two guises, at 41.3% - did not want one. This is exactly what I, and the late, lamented, Vami IV, did at the Belton House FAR, where Giano was again the lead contributor. I could have chosen to insert one there, and indeed I am now the main contributor on that article, but I chose not to. Ditto here, and here. KJP1 (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Robert, I think you might be inching us towards a compromise. Recognising that Rod did want an IB, and they are the second highest contributor to the article, if JohnBod could live with the truncated version illustrated, I could certainly do a prose paragraph, to go either above or below In popular culture, to contain those listing details, which we've all agreed we don't want in an IB. Perhaps if you were to frame that as a compromise solution, we could see if it flies? KJP1 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for extending the back-and-forth – I'm only doing so to correct my misinterpretation of KJP1's first statement in my second statement below.
Given KJP1 and Johnbod do not want an infobox, I would follow this consensus. I agree with KJP1's reasoning in following the wishes of the main contributor, assuming there are no other factors at play. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you agree with this, what are we all doing here? You have been repeatedly told in numerous pages that your ideas are unwelcome. You’ve had me blocked for finding you tiresome. Yet, you are still here defeating your own bogus claims. What is your agenda? Because other than believing that s/he who shouts loudest and longer wins, I’m struggling to see it. AdamBlack89 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon, I don't think AdamBlack89 is able to participate in the discussion without being uncivil toward me. I've already raised this at ANI, but it doesn't seem to have made a difference. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
An RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to clarify to what extent and in what circumstances infoboxes should be collapsed might be worthwhile. The current guideline isn't as clear as it could be, which has made the Montacute discussion more difficult.
Assuming collapsing isn't an option, the fact myself and KJP1 support an infobox and Johnbod can tolerate one suggests that having an infobox would be acceptable. Other editors may not agree with this, however.
I agree with Johnbod that the listed building parameters take up too much space. As this affects more than just the Montacute House article, discussion about modifying them should take place at template:infobox historic site. I would be happy to help with organising this. My preference would be to do this after the conclusion of the RfC about MOS:COLLAPSE mentioned above. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the stripped-down IB is way better, but in fact goes a bit too far. I think my detailed comments on that belong at talk on the house, but I would welcome a more general discussion at template:infobox historic site, when this is over. We now have discussions on 3 pages on this, some with multiple threads. Don't let's start another. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Montacute House)
I am providing a section for back-and-forth discussion about a compromise on a stripped-down infobox. I am also asking each editor who supports an infobox to state what they think is the minimum that they want in the infobox, and each editor who opposes an infobox to state what, if anything, they are willing to accept as a compromise. You may make these statements either as statements to the community (no back-and-forth responses) or back-and-forth statements. If back-and-forth discussion becomes repetitive, I will stop it and resume normal procedure.
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Montacute House)
Fourth statement by moderator (Montacute House)
Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Remember that the purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, and in this case to improve the infobox by agreeing on a compromise. Are the editors at or near agreement about the infobox? If not, will an RFC be needed? Are there any other content-related questions or issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Montacute House)
Am I right in saying that we've reached a consensus not to include an infobox at Montacute House, the principal reason being that the main contributing editor didn't want one? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I thought we were closer to agreeing a, very much trimmed down, infobox. You would like one, as would RodW. I would have one if I had written the article from scratch. While Johnbod, and we can assume Giano, would prefer not to have one, Johnbod can live with the slimmed-down version. As to Giano, we know they accepted the collapsed version as a compromise. My guess is that they would prefer a much-truncated version to a full IB if those were the only options. KJP1 (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Montacute House)
Do the editors taking part in this discussion agree that the consensus is no infobox?
Do the editors taking part in this discussion agree that the consensus is a small infobox?
If we have agreement on either of these alternatives, we will close this discussion. Otherwise, we will resort to an RFC.
Are there any other questions about content at this point?
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Montacute House)
I can agree with the reasoning in KJP1's fourth statement above. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Although I'm not quite sure what a 'much trimmed down' infobox means. We can work that out on the article talk page, perhaps. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Support a "small" infobox", along the lines of the exemplar given. KJP1 (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (Montacute House)
Do the editors taking part in this discussion agree that the consensus is a small infobox? The exact content of the infobox can be decided by normal editing.
If there is no disagreement, I will close this discussion as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors (Montacute House)
Robert - I think most of the involved editors are too exhausted by the discussion/have other things to do, but I believe that is indeed the consensus we have reached. I'm sure we can agree the specific contents through Talkpage discussion. Thank you very much for your help on this one. KJP1 (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I can't add much to what KJP1 has said, except to say that I agree and to repeat their thanks for moderating this discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Back-and-forth discussion (Montacute House)
To kick the discussion off: considering a spectrum from NONE; Bramshill House; to COLLAPSED Little Moreton Hall; to FULL Cragside; I think the minimum details for an IB to be of any value would be something like:
Name / Image (as large as permissible) / Location / Listed Building Status (one line) / Historic Park Status (one line) / Map
I could probably lose Governing body (easy to cover in the lead) / Type (again in lead) / Architect (again in lead, although if the building was strongly associated with one architect, e.g. Hearst Castle & Julia Morgan, there might be a case?) Architectural style (again in lead). These last two do illustrate the challenges of trying for an accurate IB summary - how many architects would you list for Buckingham Palace, what architectural style would you attribute to it? Hope this is helpful as a starting suggestion. KJP1 (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that which parameters are used really depends on the article. 'Type', for example, is used well at Alfriston Clergy House, a major surviving example of a Wealden hall house, a specific type of dwelling. It's less well-deployed at Knole, a great sprawling mess of a place which doesn't conform to a single type, and which is described rather broadly as a country house.
To answer the last part of your comment, at Criccieth Castle I listed the builders (owners, really) and building phases in the infobox. The castle was built in three main phases, and while this is explained in the article body it is useful to have them laid out simply. For houses with particularly complex building histories this approach would probably produce unwieldy results, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
While the list at the top of this section is a reasonable start, I don't think it is possible to give a standard minimum list, even for as narrow a group as English country houses. For example the old expanded Montacute box had "Type: prodigy house, Style: Elizabethan architecture". Really since the great majority of prodigy houses are Elizabethan, with a few from the next reign, and all are country houses, "Type: Elizabethan prodigy house" covers all that pretty well. Something on type/style is much more important than the listing info, even at one line; that is where the appalling UNESCO World Heritage Site box falls down. The The main date of completion of the existing structure is important, if there is one, but often there isn't. In the case of Montacute, the builder Edward Phelips (speaker) isn't essential for the IB imo, but for eg Hatfield House it would be. The trouble is that for the general run of articles, the drive-by people who added the infoboxes, mostly some years ago now, had no idea what was important for a particular article and what wasn't. I notice that the FA Ham House doesn't mention the gardens listing in the IB at all, though it is in the lead - and the gardens there are way more important than those at Montacute, where the layout is essentially 19/20th century. I am one of the very, very few WP editors who currently write on English garden history, and I'm not that interested in the gardens listings as a key fact. Johnbod (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I think we're largely in agreement. Do you think it's worth opening a discussion in the future about the listings boxes, or is it something we can live with? I'm working on Wightwick Manor at the moment and have reduced the boxes to just their listing numbers, which I think works quite well (and if you'd like to chip in on the gardens side please consider this an invitation). A.D.Hope (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd agree that we've largely reached agreement here, and I thinkUser:Rodw will be content to the extent that there will be a box - but they can correct me if I'm wrong. My concern about any wider discussion remains. Either there will be little interest, and it will be another conversation between the few of us. Or there will be a lot of interest, with attendant heat, and we shall just discover, once again, that people get very worked up over IBs, and that there are very divergent, and irreconcilable, views. Personally, I'd just chalk this one up as a local consensus and move on to other things. But I understand if others want a wider discussion. KJP1 (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
As I have previously said I believe many readers find an infobox useful, however I do not feel strongly enough for long discussions like this or anywhere else.— Rodtalk 08:21, 1 March 2024 (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.
Closed as probably resolved by talk page discussion. If there are any remaining issues, continue discussion at the article talk page. A new thread can be opened here after lengthy and inconclusive discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
We have had an in-depth conversation on the Boeing 737 MAX talk page for multiple days regarding the use of the phrase "pilot error" in the article when referring to the Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian Airlines 302 accidents. At this point, I have provided many reliable secondary sources which go into great detail regarding the errors of the pilots, the development of the 737 MAX, and the results of the official accident reports. Some of these directly use the phrase "pilot error".
In my opinion, simply using a particular phrase which is widely accepted in the field being discussed requires no source, but even so, upon request from other editors I have provided sources which show direct evidence of both pilot error and the usage of the term in reliable secondary sources. There's even a Wikipedia article on Pilot Error.
We have "driver error" for cars, we have "engineer error" for trains, we have "captain error" for boats, we have "operator error" for heavy equipment and machinery, and we have "human error" for basically everything else. Why is "pilot error" uniquely contentious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:B430:C623:2BCB:6882 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Some of the sources I have provided include very technical language, and it seems like the significance of the information is perhaps lost on editors who are not familiar with the subject matter.
More specifically, I have proposed that this sentence in the lede "Contributing to the accidents was the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which activated unexpectedly due to erroneous angle of attack data, and inadequate pilot training." is modified to read "Contributing to the accidents was the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which activated unexpectedly due to erroneous angle of attack data, and pilot error due to inadequate training." with the appropriate link to the Pilot Error article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
If reliable secondary sources indicate that the pilots made errors, the article should include the phrase "pilot error", whether or not the sources themselves use the specific phrase. Reliable secondary sources which do specifically refer to "pilot error" have even been included, which I feel is more than enough evidence that the phrase is acceptable.
I'm not experienced with these notice boards, so please put me down as a third-party participant or something. I don't plan on directly defending the anon OP but will articulate my thoughts in a summary below.
Thank you for clarifying. I think this posting is premature as no proposed wording for addition to the article has yet been discussed, and is also, in my view, dependant on what is added at Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Mention of the phrase "pilot error" in the lead section might be justified if sufficient context was provided to explain that the use of the term, in the context of the two accidents, has been controversial. I'd suggest that adding a bald statement such as "pilot error was a contributory factor", for either or both of the accidents, should be avoided. I believe that the arguments that the term is justified in the lead section because it "has been used to describe many other accidents", or because "most aviation accidents are caused by pilot error", are wholly spurious and demonstrate a failure of logical reasoning. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Note: discussion over the use of the term "pilot error" in the lead section of the Boeing 737 MAX article, as well as in the lead sections and/or info-boxes of the two accident articles, seems to be connected with removal or reduction of "MCAS" as the main cause of, or major contributory factor in, the respective accidents. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by RickyCourtney
I have actively considered numerous suggestions from the Anonymous editor, collaborating with them to implement several alterations to the article.
While the article acknowledges pilot error as a "contributing" factor in the two fatal crashes of the 737 MAX, it places it within a broader context, highlighting that pilot error was just one of at least nine issues contributing to the accidents. The singular report attributing primary blame to the pilots was authored by individuals commissioned and compensated by institutional investors holding significant Boeing stock. These individuals were widely perceived as advocating a perspective to deflect blame away from Boeing.
Returning to the central concern, I object to including the term "pilot error" in the article's introduction. Such inclusion would necessitate an extensive contextual explanation covering various other shortcomings that culminated in the two crashes, undermining the purpose of the introduction, which is to summarize the article's key points briefly. Furthermore, I am concerned that the term "pilot error" may be perceived by lay readers as a negative judgment of the pilots, perpetuating a narrative that some pilots have criticized as "blinkered chauvinism in this view of U.S. pilots as superior."[10] -- RickyCourtney (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
We're trying to determine if the term "pilot error" should be included in the Boeing 737 MAX article & lede. The primary issue is that the term is not used in the Ethiopian [5] or Indonesian [6] accident investigation report, or the NTSB [7] and BEA [8] reports. However, the latter two reports explicitly state a couple key points, which are backed up and further expanded on by secondary sources:
The incident aircraft was recoverable by following existing procedure (RUNAWAY STABILIZER checklist)
The pilots of each aircraft were recently trained on this procedure
The pilots failed to perform the applicable emergency checklist properly (RUNAWAY STABILIZER checklist)
Pilots of the preceding Lion Air flight encountered the same problem but were able to recover the aircraft by using the RUNAWAY STABILIZER checklist, and continued the flight without event
So while the NTSB and BEA sources do detail the mistakes, inaction, and inadequate actions of the pilots, they never explicitly say "pilot error". I believe the crux of this dispute stems from if we should summarize the four points above into "pilot error". At least one secondary source does this for us [9]. If we don't, then the only way to detail the incidents accurately is by writing out these key points to describe how the aircraft crashed. If we do, we're using a semi-restrictive term more liberally than it usually is.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Boeing 737 Max)
I am ready to act as moderator in this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. I see that one of the issues has to do with whether and when to use the phrase "pilot error". Will each editor please specify exactly where they either think that the phrase should be used, or where another editor thinks it should be used and they think that it should not be used? Will each editor please also identify any other portions of the article about which they think that there is a content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Boeing 737 Max)
Statement by Martinevans123
I'd suggest that whether and when to use the phrase "pilot error" is the only substantive issue in this dispute. But I see that the discussion at Talk:Boeing 737 MAX#Additional lede comments has now been closed by User:RickyCourtney with the summary "Consensus has been reached on a rewording." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Zeroth? Wasn't he some big cheese in Greek mythology??
First statement by moderator (Boeing 737 Max)
Is there any remaining disagreement, or should I close this thread as resolved by talk page discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Boeing 737 Max)
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.
Hello, I and others attempted to reach a WP:Consensus regarding the role of Belarus in the article Russo-Ukrainian War, but the issue is quite complicated and requires a strong, broad and long-term WP:Consensus. I think that in the infobox (and elsewhere in this article) Belarus should be described as a "co-belligerent" or as "Supported by" in the side of Russia in this war (e.g. like that) because of Belarus exceptional role in this war which is already more than just "Supplied by" (e.g. military hardware to Russia).
The role of Belarus in this war is exceptional because during the highly intensified phase of this war since 24 February 2022 (see: Russian invasion of Ukraine), the Russian Army forces were allowed to: 1) invade Ukraine from the Belarusian territory through ground (1, 2); 2) Russian jets have taken off from Belarus (from Belarusian airbases) to subsequently enter Ukraine from Belarusian airspace (3); 3) Belarus allowed Russia full access to its military airbases for Russian military aircraft to launch aircraft and its army installations to shoot artillery and missiles from Belarusian territory towards Ukraine (4, 5); 4) see more info here: Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, although no evidence was collected that the Armed Forces of Belarus themselves invaded Ukraine (which would make Belarus a full belligerent in this war), the role of Belarus is clearly not equal to other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Germany to Ukraine; Iran/North Korea to Russia) because they have never allowed to use their territories for direct military actions against Ukraine/Russia (and their armies), while Belarus allowed to do that.
Many sources describe Belarus as a "co-belligerent" in this war: Institute for the Study of War (6, 7), Ukrainian sources (8, 9), and others (e.g. 10, 11).
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I think that a qualified help is necessary to start a broad WP:RFC discussion (by informing as many users as possible through Wiki projects, etc.) and reach a WP:CONS. I believe that in the upcoming RFC other users should be informed about my arguments provided here in the "Dispute overview" section. To simplify the upcoming RFC voting, I think that the users should be given three options regarding the role of Belarus: A) Co-belligerent; B) Supported by; C) Supplied by.
Summary of dispute by Mzajac
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Slatersteven
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
At its heart, the issue really is not about Belarus, but attempts to claim parity with NATO.
Belarus allowed Russian forces to launch attacks from its soil but did not (as far as I am aware) participate. As such it both did more and less than just supplying arms. This creates a rather odd situation where they are not (technically) a belligerent but also are not uninvolved. Thus is seems that they need a middle-ground approach. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Parham wiki
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RadioactiveBoulevardier
I doubt that another round of discussions will forge a clearer consensus at this time, despite the passage of some real time and the topic-banning of a major and…polarizing contributor. I think Slatersteven is right about “wait for the historians” (which means big thick hardcover books of sober analysis, not ideology-laced works like those of Timothy Snyder and the infelicitously named Serhii Plokhy).
It sounds like Pofka wants Belarus listed as a co-belligerent. This is, as Cinderella157 said, WP:EXCEPTIONAL (since the term has a specific formal definition). The term has occasionally been bandied about by biased sources like our old friends at ISW (which is, last I checked, still a post-neocon Washington think tank) and stuff but it would be functionally equivalent to listing Belarus along with Russia with no caveats.
This possibility was at multiple points raised by Mzajac and, unlike the use of “supported by” to represent Belarus’ unique status during the initial invasion, was not endorsed by a plurality.
On other pages I’ve already stated quite a lot (although by the metrics a fraction of the amount several others have written). I don’t see the point in rehashing old arguments when diffs are forever.
In fact, I would like to continue the slow fade from talk pages in this topic area. I have better things to do –having already fallen down the rabbit hole that is EE studies at college, I don’t feel like being contrarian and realistic is consistent anymore with the part of me that enjoys sipping tea with cute refugees and erudite dissidents.
I hope some of this late-night stream-of-consciousness has been helpful to the DR process. While I’m not leaving RUSUKR entirely, I’ve pretty much had more than enough of the talk page atmosphere.
Summary of dispute by Cinderella157
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Slatersteven summarises the situation quite well. The evidence omits where Pofka added Belarus to the infobox under the heading of Co-belligerence. It was deleted by me with the summary: A WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. The status of belligerence is not supported by the body of the article per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. There is nuance to co-belligerence here. It is not consistent with the usual meaning - engaged in the fighting. From the discussions, there is clearly no appetite to add Belarus to the infobox as a co-belligerent because it is too nuanced in this instance. Supported by is depricated unless there is an affirmative consensus (RfC) to use it as in Russian invasion of Ukraine. As Russian invasion of Ukraine is a daughter article, of the Russo-Ukrainian War, I am in two minds that the RfC at the invasion article supports inclusion in the war article but other editors have indicated the need for a separate RfC in recent discussions. That is fine. Just start the RfC using the RfC at the invasion article as the template. On a side note, Supplied by in the war article is clearly and end-around the deprecation of "supported by", contrary to the spirit and intent of the RfC deprecating "supported by". It should be removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, the first question is whether Belarus should be listed at all. The second is how. But the distinction might be moot. My observation is that an RfC to list Belarus under "supported by" would likely gain consensus. An RfC with multiple options would likely result in "no consensus" just because that is commonly how non-binary RfCs conclude. A binary RfC for anything other than "supported by" will not, in my considered opinion, result in "consensus for". This seems to me to be an unusual DR, since the solution is evident - an RfC. It appears to be a case of asking advice on what the RfC should ask, when this usually occurs through TP discussion. My advice is to make an RfC to list Belarus under "supported by". It is better to go with the flow than to try to push shit up-hill with a pointy stick. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Russo-Ukrainian War discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian War)
I am ready to act as the moderator for discussion that may lead to an RFC. We will use DRN Rule D because this dispute involves a contentious topic. Some topic areas in Wikipedia are subject to battleground editing because they have been real battlegrounds in the past. Eastern Europe has been a battleground too many times in the past century and is the bloodiest battleground of the twenty-first century. If you agree to take part in this discussion, you are agreeing that Eastern Europe is a contentious topic.
Are there any questions other than how Belarus should be listed?
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Ukrainian War)
Zeroth statement by Pofka
@Robert McClenon: Yes, I fully agree that this contentious topic is highly problematic due to likely disruptive editing and that is why I have requested assistance to reach a long-standing WP:CONS about the role/status of Belarus in this war in order to prevent battleground editing in this article in the future. Currently, I have no additional questions to you Robert.
By the way, in June 2023 Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed that "the only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014" (see: full article), which makes it clear that Lukashenko also tractate the current Ukraine as the enemy of Belarus and seeks for Ukraine's defeat militarily (clearly acting as co-belligerent). I think "co-belligerent" is a suitable middle ground approach for Belarus between belligerents (Russia and Ukraine) and military suppliers (United States, France, Germany, Iran, North Korea, etc.). -- Pofka (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
One editor has made a statement and thinks that Belarus should be listed as a co-belligerent. There was an opening comment that Belarus should be listed as providing support. If there are no other viewpoints presented, the RFC will ask the community whether to list Belarus as providing support or as a co-belligerent.
Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Ukrainian War)
First statement by Cinderella157
A proposed RfC must explicitly state something to effect: "Should Belarus be listed in the belligerent section of the info box with Russia: a) no, b) without qualification, c) under a heading of Co-belligerent, or d) under a heading supported by".
To choice a), listing Belarus as providing support or as a co-belligerent is not actually a binary question. Belarus is not listed at present. Continuing to not list it is an option.
To choice b) where multiple belligerents are listed in the same column of the infobox, they are ipso facto co-belligerents, by which, listing Belarus under an explicit heading of "co-belligerent" is redundant, if not ambiguous.
Trying to list Belarus under an explicit heading of co-belligerent is ambiguous and would attempt to convey nuance for which the infobox is totally unsuited. Such a proposal will (in my humble and experienced opinion) be shot down in flames faster than a SCUD missile heading for Jerusalem. If Pofka wants to continue to push this uphill with a pointy stick, then all I can say is knock your socks off (ie - go ahead). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
Is there agreement that the RFC should state something to effect: "Should Belarus be listed in the belligerent section of the info box with Russia: a) no, b) without qualification, c) under a heading of Co-belligerent, or d) under a heading supported by".?
Are there any other proposals for what the RFC should ask? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Ukrainian War)
Second statement by Pofka
@Robert McClenon: I mostly agree with the upcoming RFC voting choices suggestion described in your second statement (according to Cinderella157's first statement above), but I think that Belarus should be described as "co-belligerent" not only in the infobox of this article, but elsewhere in the article as well (otherwise it would likely violate infobox guidelines). Moreover, I repeat once again that information and sources from my initial statement ("Dispute overview" section) should be also provided in the upcoming RFC (before these a, b, c, d voting choices) because many users-voters might not be fully familiar with the role of Belarus in this war and why it is significantly different from other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Iran). Here is how I think the RFC should look like:
Extended content
This RFC was initiated because it is necessary to reach a strong WP:CONS in article Russo-Ukrainian War regarding the role of Belarus in this war.
The role of Belarus in this war is quite exceptional because during the highly intensified phase of this war since 24 February 2022 (see: Russian invasion of Ukraine) the Russian Army forces were allowed to: 1) invade Ukraine from the Belarusian territory through ground (1, 2); 2) Russian jets have taken off from Belarus (from Belarusian airbases) to subsequently enter Ukraine from Belarusian airspace (3); 3) Belarus allowed Russia full access to its military airbases for Russian military aircraft to launch aircraft and its army installations to shoot artillery and missiles from Belarusian territory towards Ukraine (4, 5); 4) see more information in dedicated article: Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, although no evidence was collected that the Armed Forces of Belarus themselves invaded Ukraine (which would possibly make Belarus a full belligerent in this war), the role of Belarus is possibly not equal to other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Germany to Ukraine; Iran/North Korea to Russia) because they have never allowed to use their territories for direct military actions against Ukraine/Russia (and their armies), while Belarus allowed to do that. Moreover, in June 2023 Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed that "the only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014" (see: full article).
Popular sources already describe Belarus as a "co-belligerent" in this war: Institute for the Study of War (6, 7), Ukrainian sources (e.g. 8, 9), and others (e.g. 10, 11).
Please provide your opinion how Belarus should be described in article Russo-Ukrainian War (in the infobox and elsewhere in this article where events since 24 February 2022 related with Belarus are described):
A) not as belligerent (in the infobox and content of this article);
B) without qualification (in the infobox and content of this article);
C) as co-belligerent in Russia's side (in the infobox and content of this article);
D) under a heading "supported by" in Russia's side in the infobox and as military supplier of Russia in content of this article.
I have created a draft RFC for review, at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/RFC on Listing of Belarus. Please review and comment on it. It is not an active RFC, and has tags to deactivate it until it is moved to the article talk page. Do not !vote in it. Comment on it here, not in it.
Are there any other questions?
Robert McClenon (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Ukrainian War)
Third statement by Pofka
@Robert McClenon: If you think that a more extensive explanation why the role of Belarus is likely exceptional in this war should not be included, then I think the RFC draft (Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/RFC on Listing of Belarus) should be at least modified like that: "Should Belarus be listed in the infobox (and accordingly described in other parts of the article concerning the events since 24 January 2024): (a). no (as at present); (b) as supported by; (c) as a co-belligerent; (d) without qualification?" The RFC should not be simplified only towards the infobox but must cover the whole article because with the provided RFC draft of yours, Robert, we will most likely be voting to violate/ignore WP:INFOBOX guidelines or no because information provided in the infobox must be described in the body of the article as well. We cannot vote to whenever describe Belarus as a co-belligerent in the infobox only, but not elsewhere in the article, so I disagree with your currently proposed RFC draft, Robert. Please add my suggested green text with a wiki link to article Russian invasion of Ukraine to RFC draft and then I will support it. -- Pofka (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
User:Pofka - Please do not attribute positions to the moderator or lecture the moderator. I have no specific desire to present the role of Belarus in this war as exceptional. I think that you do, and I am trying to work to ask the community if they agree with you. If you want to help me help you, you can do it by not being harsh in your correction.
I have revised the draft RFC in accordance with your comments, and am now asking you and the other editors to comment further on whether it is ready to go live.
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Ukrainian War)
Fourth statement by Pofka
@Robert McClenon: Sorry if I sounded harsh. I was just trying to explain how I think the question in the upcoming RFC should be presented. I fully agree with the updated RFC draft, but I think there is a grammatic mistake with that dot between "in the infobox. and accordingly". Shouldn't it be a comma or brackets? -- Pofka (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed as already pending in another forum, the biographies of living persons noticeboard. DRN does not accept a dispute that is already pending in another forum. Taking a dispute from one noticeboard to another noticeboard in Wikipedia is known as telling the other parent and is strongly discouraged. Continue discussion at BLPN. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I have made repeated requests on Talk:Heiner_Rindermann and WP:BLPN to reach a consensus edit on Heiner_Rindermann. The current edit contains innuendo suggesting that Rindermann is racist and that his academic output is pseudoscience. The references provided do not substantiate these statements. I consider the content to violate the conventions of WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH and have tried on several occasions to edit the page, and to add quality tags. On each occasion my edits have been reverted, usually without discussion, and in the the last three instances by User:Generalrelative. I am asking disinterested editors to intervene so that a consensus edit can be reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nangaf (talk • contribs) 05:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would like disinterested editors to mediate and help reach a consensus edit.
Summary of dispute by Generalrelative
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Zenomonoz
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mr_Butterbur
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Heiner Rindermann discussion
I see that in addition to the edit warring,[10][11][12][13]User:Generalrelative has now called me a SPA,[14] which is an WP:ASPERSION and factually incorrect: I have 5000 edits over the last four years. I have made multiple attempts to engage with this individual on User_talk:Generalrelative, which have all been ignored or deleted, and I am losing patience with this editor. Nangaf (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This looks more like a behavioral matter for AE (we're dealing with the race & intelligence contentious topic area) than a legitimate content dispute. And to clarify, I was referring to the SPA Mr Butterbur in that edit summary, who was clearly canvassed off-Wiki, likely by the same topic-banned (and now-blocked) IP user who initially canvassed Nangaf. If we are going to have a dispute resolution over content, it seems odd to leave out the other two experienced editors –– besides Zenomonoz and myself –– who have told Nangaf they're wrong here: Hob Gadling and Grayfell. But yeah, I'd really prefer not to deal with all this gaslighting in the first place. There is a rough consensus among the experienced editors that the status quo doesn't violate policy, and Nangaf's efforts at WP:PROXYING for a banned user appear (to me) to have veered into WP:TE territory. Generalrelative (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, let's just take this straight to ANI. Apologies, folks. I don't think mediation is going to work here. Nangaf (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a WP:BLPN issue, and it is already there (as well as other places, like ANI) The real issue is the policy on BLP and if the sources support the claims, which is why BLPN is the correct venue for this discussion, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:33, 6 March 2024 (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.
Closed due to lack of notice, and as incorrectly filed. The editor who filed this case was logged out at the time, probably by accident, and did not notify the other editor. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case request can be filed; the filing editor should be logged in, and must notify the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The wikipedia article "Dragon" indicates that dragons are magical creatures. I realized that they could also be real creatures as aliens on other worlds. I tried to make this edit in the Wikipedia article but someone else reverted the edit and said I could not make the edit. This is not fair and there is no reason for this and it would be very useful, so can you please acknowledge the need for the edit? Please see on talk page "Dragons are not just magical creatures".
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
This is obviously unfair so please confirm I can make the edit.
Summary of dispute by MattMauler
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Dragon discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
This discussion is premature; talk page discussion is not exhausted yet, and you have no independent reliable sources to support your claims. I suggest you withdraw this posting and continue to discuss on the talk page, offering your sources. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2024 (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.
Closed as failed. I sort of thank User:Ftrebien for reporting that there had been edit-warring of the statements by the editors. DRN Rule A and its siblings don't say not to rearrange statements by editors, because I didn't think of making a rule. I probably will add such a prohibition to the rulesets. It is unfortunately clear to me that the editors are not taking part in moderated discussion constructively. I don't monitor user talk pages of editors, and didn't notice a long exchange between two editors, which wasn't collaborative. I am failing this discussion. There are two remaining avenues for dispute resolution, which are not mutually exclusive. A Request for Comments can be used. That is the alternative that may improve the encyclopedia. A report can be made to WP:ANI. That is the alternative to stop conduct that interferes with improving the encyclopedia. If there is an RFC, it should be neutrally worded. An editor should read the boomerang essay before reporting to WP:ANI. This moderated discussion has failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute revolves around determining whether the MP4 file format is an open format. It is an open standard according to the Library of Congress, which is a secondary source. After I provided a reference to the Library of Congress, the other user removed the reference, changed the “open” status to "not open", and restored the previous references to GitHub, starting an edit war. A third opinion agreed that the GitHub sources were not that reliable. After another revert, the other user changed the status again to "not open" by adding references to one organization's definition of "open" (then the article was protected in that state...), and in the discussion this editor questioned the authority of the Library of Congress in defining what open means, while ignoring references that point to different interpretations of the term by different standards organizations and governments. I believe there is a problem in understanding the definitions.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Asked for a third opinion, which is now involved in the discussion and agrees that GitHub was not a proper source
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I think you can help by reaffirming the reliability of the Library of Congress as a secondary source for this information, by directing the question about the definition of "open" to the relevant articles, and by supporting an edit request at the end of the talk page.
Summary of dispute by Svnpenn
update: in the spirit of trying to find consensus, I have suggested to remove the "open format" marker, or replace it with something less contentious. user Fernando Trebien has referred to this as "nonsense"
I am of the opinion that user Ftrebien has acted in bad faith. they engaged in reversals themself, also they even went so far as to edit other articles, in service of their agenda:
removing links and text that had been added by third parties. I am fine with removing the GitHub links, and keeping the LOC link. however LOC is a non-technical government agency, and as such is not an arbiter of what is an open format. they are welcome to their opinion, as is Ftrebien. to my eyes, these are currently the best links on the subject:
which supports that MP4 is NOT an open format. further, the standard itself explicitly forbids reproduction:
> All IEC Publications are protected by the publisher's copyright and no part of any IEC Publication can be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means (graphic, electronic or mechanical including photocopying) without the written permission of the publisher (please see Copyright on IEC Standards in Database Format).
which means its not a https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_license, and in turn the format is not open. if other or better links are available, I am open to adding them. however the current references (basically just the LOC link) are not enough on their own to determine that MP4 is an open format.
Summary of dispute by VQuakr
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Disagreement on the applicability of sources and the content supported by those sources in the context of WP:SYNTH and WP:USERGENERATED, though the latter may already be resolved.
A markedly similar dispute between the same participants (except myself) is happening at ISO base media file format. I believe both articles should be included in the scope of this dispute resolution effort if the case is accepted. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
MP4 file_format discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other party on their user talk page. Also, the editor who provided the Third Opinion should be listed and notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Added the editor providing the third opinion and notified the other party and the editor providing the third opinion. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (MP4)
I am ready to act as the moderator of this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Are there any article content issues other than whether the file format should be listed as an open file format?
We should list the MP4 format as an open file format if reliable sources state that it is an open format. We should not try to determine from the definition of an open file format and from technical information about the file format whether MP4 is an open file format, because that would be original research. Is there a disagreement about whether any source is a reliable source? If so, we should ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard for an opinion on source reliability. Will each editor please state what sources they are relying on. Are there any issues about whether the format is an open format that are not about the question of how to label the format? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (MP4)
The source I presented is the description of the MP4 format from the Sustainability of Digital Formats website from the Library of Congress's Digital Preservation program. An archived version shows that since 2012 the Library of Congress describes the format as an "open standard" and this document as a "fully realized draft" (the most mature draft status; all statuses are called "drafts"); the document was updated in 2023 with no change to "open standard". An open file format is a format specified by an open standard. Previous RSN comments on the Library of Congress appear generally favorable in a number of contexts, but it seems no one has ever asked about its suitability regarding technical or legal information, as is the case in this dispute. The article on Digital preservation cites the Library of Congress several times.
I opened an RSN request on the reliability of Library of Congress sources. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Will each editor please state what sources they are relying on. The only source I have seen discussed (discounting user-generated sources and sources whose use would be original synthesis) is the Library of Congress source above. I do not have concerns about this source's reliability, but the way it supports the "open" descriptor of the format is less than ideal because it is a single word in a data table rather than a discussion in prose with commentary. Even with this limitation, in the absence of reliable sources stating otherwise I agree it is an adequate source to use in the infobox. Are there any issues about whether the format is an open format that are not about the question of how to label the format? No, to the best of my understanding. VQuakr (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
added a source above Svnpenn (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I do not see any sources in this section aside from the Library of Congress link. VQuakr (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
this link demonstrated the ambiguity in definition:
link was originally provided by Fernando Trebien, but only serves to show that the matter is contested. which is why I suggest that the key "open format" be removed or changed to something with consensus. Svnpenn (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Internal links are not sources per WP:CIRCULAR, and do not inform a discussion about article content. VQuakr (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
hopefully you can then understand why arguing about a topic that has little to no official sources is a good use of anyone time. hence why I suggested that we stop the argument and just remove or use an alternate key such as "open license" or "open access" Svnpenn (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Since the value of the "open format" specifier is contested, I argue that we should simply remove it, or change the key to something else, such as "open license" or "open access". this will quickly solve the debate. the "free format" value is not contested, nor are "open license" or "open access" that I am aware of. so to summarize:
"open format" is contested, value could be YES or NO
"free format" is not contested, value should be NO
"open license" is not contested, value should be NO
"open access" is not contested, value should be NO
Fernando Trebien point is that "open format" has an agreed upon value, when one of his own links argues against that point:
This says nothing about the MP4 file format and using it would be WP:CIRCULAR. I brought this up in the discussion to help clarify the various meanings of the term “open” by different organizations. I also argued that some organizations on this list are much more influential than others. We should follow the judgment of a reliable secondary source regarding the common usage of terminology. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
> This says nothing about the MP4 file format and using it would be WP:CIRCULAR.
"this" is ambiguous, so I will assume you mean the whole comment? if thats the case, I would direct you to these pages:
I believe the value of "open format" should be NO, or alternatively we could remove the "open format" key, since its value is contested, or replace the key with another key such as "open license" or "open access".
> I brought this up in the discussion to help clarify the various meanings of the term “open” by different organizations.
right, but ironically the link actually argues against your own point, and only serves to add to the ambiguity of the proper value of "open format".
> We should follow the judgment of a reliable secondary source regarding the common usage of terminology
I agree, but in this case, as you've demonstrated with your previous link, consensus has not been reached on this topic.
@Robert McClenon: because one of the participants in this section has returned to editing the article ([15], [16]), I believe the dispute resolution should be closed and the case referred to ANI. VQuakr (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
the edits in question bypass the previous point of contention, so I dont see how ANI applies here. the current disagreement appears to be unlikely to resolve, so the best course would be to remove the contested content, until such time as an agreement can be reached. did you have anything in the spirit of compromise to add? I have tried bending over backwards here to find a middle ground, and the other parties seem unwilling to move from their original position even a little. Svnpenn (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
also, you failed to mention that YOU have also returned to editing:
WP:RULEA only discusses editing the article, and I believe my edit summary made clear why I felt that particular template edit needed reversion with some urgency. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
you're knowingly skating the rules, in order to keep your record "clean" and paint me in a bad light. both edits result in a change to the contested article. Svnpenn (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I do not want to fail a case immediately after it is open, because sometimes one or more of the editors only read the rules once and didn't understand that they were violating the rules. I will fail the case if an editor files a report at WP:ANI, but one of the reasons for this noticeboard is to prevent disputes from going to ANI. So I would like to try to restart this discussion.
Please read DRN Rule A again. I will repeat a few points. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions, and the participants will answer the questions. Be civil and concise. I am now asking the participants: Do you want to take part in moderated discussion, and do you agree to follow the rules? Moderated discussion will not result in sanctions on editors unless it fails. A report to WP:ANI usually results in somebody being sanctioned, so read the boomerang essay before going to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The Reliable Source Noticeboard has said that the Library of Congress is a reliable source. I will add that they should not be described as a non-technical agency, because they are a depositary for data and are concerned with usability of the data.
I am asking each editor to state concisely why they think that MP4 should or should not be listed as an open format. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (MP4)
> I am now asking the participants: Do you want to take part in moderated discussion, and do you agree to follow the rules?
honestly I dont want to take part in moderated discussion, but it seems thats the only option at this point. if an option is available to "close" this discussion, and send it back to the original parties to resolve, I think that would be best. since this escalation started, the situation has changed. I am willing to compromise on the original point, and have offered some paths to resolution. However if a moderation discussion must continue, yes I will follow the rules, and if I encounter a new rule I will respect it after learning it.
I am not answering the question of "open format", because I think its an unanswerable question. links have been provided on both sides that show this ambiguity, and I think all parties agree that its not a clear answer. so it doesn't seem right at this point to continue arguing for one side of that question.
again my current suggestion is to remove the "open format" key, or to change the key to "open license" or "open access", because those keys will have a consensus for their value.
I do not want to fail a case immediately after it is open... Fair enough. Please read DRN Rule A again... Done; agreed. I agree to moderated discussion and the rules including regarding replies (sorry!). The infobox should show MP4 as an open format as is shown in this version, because the only reliable source presented so far describes the format as open. VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I have re-read DRN Rule A and agree to continue to be moderated. I still support the same same version of the article as VQuakr. I disagree with the latest changes during dispute resolution that removed the "Open format" field from the infobox and added an "Open license" field, for the reasons in this comment made 5 hours before these changes. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (MP4)
Moderated discussion at DRN is voluntary. An editor can decline to take part in moderated discussion, or can withdraw from moderated discussion. In that case, other forms of dispute resolution will be used. One editor wants to close this discussion and send it back to the original parties to resolve. I assume that means to resolve by discussion on the article talk page. The risk is that another editor may choose to file a report at WP:ANI. So I will ask all the editors whether they want to continue to take part in moderated discussion.
If so, please state concisely why MP4 should or should not be listed as an open format. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (MP4)
> So I will ask all the editors whether they want to continue to take part in moderated discussion.
I have suggested several compromise solutions, including:
remove "open format" key
replace "open format" key with "open license"
replace "open format" key with "open access"
add "open license" key
add "open access" key
all of which I believe have been rejected by the other editors. in addition, I dont believe either of them have provided any compromise solutions. the other two editors demonstrate an unwillingness to compromise, even in the face of obvious contention on the question of the content. if that remains the case, then I suppose the best course is to continue with moderated discussion, as perhaps a moderation can help to find a compromise solution. however if the other two editors can communicate a willingness to compromise, then I would like to send the matter back to the original parties. I am willing to find a compromise here.
> If so, please state concisely why MP4 should or should not be listed as an open format.
I will say again, I do not think the question of "open format" should be answered on Wikipedia, at least not at this time. I dont think compelling evidence or consensus have been provided on either side.
A file format is open if it is specified by an open standard. This is explicitly stated by two references in the Open file format article: LINFO.org (4th paragraph) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (4th paragraph). The other references in the article do not contradict these two references, except for one reference by an advocacy group which I have contested. The LOC's definition of open format (2nd paragraph of the Disclosure section) states that it is a standard that is documented and approved by a recognized standards body and contrasts that with proprietary format for which documentation is not publicly available. These definitions mostly correspond to the text and references in Wikipedia in Open file format and Proprietary format.
Assessing MP4 as an "open format" based on the definition of the term may not belong to the scope of this dispute resolution but may help it. I think that MP4 should be listed as an open format because:
None of these references (LOC, LINFO and the Commonwealth of Massachussets) say that an open file format must be specified by an open access standard (one that is made available at no cost), although some organizations may adopt this requirement to assess a standard as "open", as shown in Open standard § Comparison of definitions. Unlike the LOC, these organizations are primary sources for the definition of open format that should be given different weights according to their notability in legal and technical fields, and some of them are advocacy groups or individuals and should not be considered.
I contested one statement in the Open file format article which incorrectly associates the notion of open file format with open license (confusingly synonymous with free license and implying open access). This incorrect association is not explicitly supported by the reference in the text, which is a draft by an advocacy group and is therefore not verifiable and cannot be used to define open file format nor to assess MP4 as an open format. The other uses of the term "open format" in the Open file format and Proprietary file format articles match the definition of the LOC with respect to no requirement of open access (no requirement of availabily at zero cost to be considered open).
Yes, we can continue moderated discussion. MP4 should be listed as an open format per WP:WEIGHT and WP:V because the only reliable source presented describes the format as open. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (MP4)
It appears that two editors say that MP4 should be listed as an open format, and one editor says that it should not be listed as an open format. The reasons for listing it as an open format are clearly stated, and rely on a secondary reliable source. So what is the reason for saying that it is not an open format?
One editor says that the two other editors have shown an unwillingness to compromise. There are some questions where compromise is not feasible, and this appears to be one of them. However, they also say: I do not think the question of "open format" should be answered on Wikipedia, at least not at this time. Do they mean that it should not be answered for MP4, or that Wikipedia should not be indicating whether formats are or are not open, because of the ambiguities of definitions of what is an open format? If the issue is that Wikipedia should not be stating that formats are or are not open, then maybe WikiProject Software would be a better place for the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (MP4)
> what is the reason for saying that it is not an open format?
I am intentionally not commenting on if MP4 is an open format, because I dont think the question is answerable currently, either on Wikipedia or broadly. The other editors have given reasons why one might consider MP4 an open format. for a reason why you might say its not an open format, you simply need to look here:
> An open file format is licensed with an open license
finally, one of the editors own links proves against their own point, in that it shows how different international bodies define "open format" differently:
Again, I am no longer trying to answer the question "is MP4 an open format", because I dont think its an answerable question, as I hope the above demonstrates.
> Do they mean that it should not be answered for MP4, or that Wikipedia should not be indicating whether formats are or are not open, because of the ambiguities of definitions of what is an open format?
Other formats have a clearly defined answer, for example:
> WebM is an open media file format designed for the web.
such a clear answer is not currently available for MP4 that I am aware of. I have today contacted the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) to try to better answer this question.
WebM is an open media file format designed for the web.
Slightly off-topic, but here the Library of Congress can again help us advance Wikipedia's goal of remaining neutral by giving due weight to available sources (especially secondary sources) and employing consistent terminology across related articles. LOC's description of WebM mirrors the expression "open source format" used by the primary source, which can be understood as an open format. "Open source" includes the notion of "open access", which is the case with the documentation of WebM. Such a description does not apply to MP4, so the LOC correctly used the term "open standard" for MP4 as it is publicly available but not necessarily available for free. The main references in WebM use the term "open source" when talking about the standard and the associated software tools that are being developed together, and they use the term "open format" when referring to the format itself, implying that "open" has the same meaning in both cases in their own documents. If the LOC document was written by WebM's developer AOMedia, it would probably say that MP4 is not an open standard, but as a secondary source that aggregates this type of information from multiple sources, LOC is aware of the history of competing definitions. In the case of WebM, I would keep the reference to the primary source for now, as the LOC document is only a "partial" draft, not its highest standard, and this is probably because the WebM format, unlike MP4, is still actively developed and is expected to undergo significant changes from time to time. Even LOC's partial draft includes many references that can be used by other Wikipedians to improve the article on WebM as LOC improves its draft until it is final.
Compared to other organizations like the ITU-T and IEEE, which had a big impact in defining digital data formats since the 1980s which has been extensively recorded in the literature, AOMedia is a relatively recent player (founded in 2015) and its main contributions are the specification of the WebM container (just a restricted subset of much older Matroska, intended to lower implementation costs) and AV1, none of which have (yet) sufficient weight to redefine traditional terminology (we can only make this judgment when secondary sources start to do so). ITU-T in particular is a close partner of ISO and IEC which standardized various digital data formats that are still widely used, namely MPEG PS still used in cable television and DVD and its descendants MPEG TS used in Blu-ray and MP4 now used in cable television as well and a lot of streaming media, and also the often associated video codecs MPEG-4 AVC (still used often for live streaming due to its optimal tradeoff between quality and computational complexity on the encoding side) and audio codecs MP3 and AAC. Even today's large streaming services, like YouTube, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, that use WebM or AV1 also offer their media content in these other formats. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
If the issue is that Wikipedia should not be stating that formats are or are not open, then maybe WikiProject Software would be a better place for the discussion.
Based on the work made by many other Wikipedians over the years, I believe Wikipedia should state whether formats are open or not. There are some discussions in the archives of WikiProject Software regarding open "source" software, and only a little about "formats" and "standards". We may continue there, but the subject is so specific that we may have to wait a very long time for any reply. I asked for opinions there 9 days ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software § Comments on MP4 as an open format needed, and so far we had none coming from this project. VQuakr joined the discussion from my request for a third opinion but I believe they are not involved with WikiProject Software. The article about Open file format is rated high importance for WikiProject Computing, I also asked for opinions there around the same time. A natural next step would have been to launch an RfC, but I decided to go to Dispute resolution first as it seemed to me that the other party was not aware of the specifics of the subject and also due to some actions that I perceived as misconduct, such as unfounded accusations of vandalism ([17], [18] and [19]) and bad faith [20], which might have been because the user describes themselves as novice and is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and spirit. I also currently see many of the actions taken as this conflict unfolded as multiple instances of different forms of tendentious editing by the other party, especially those made after having learned from a second editor about Wikipedia policies and guidelines ([21] after [22], [23] and [24] after [25]), and I expected that moderation would help them understand that, although it made clearer a persistent general pattern of disruptive editing[26]. The guidelines on dealing with disruptive editing expressly recommend dispute resolution before an RfC if too few participants are involved. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2024 (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.
Closed as declined. Two of the editors who have been notified have declined to participate at this time in DRN, which is voluntary. Continue discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Current dispute is about 3 things:
1) Certain footnotes [27] (this could seem very minor, but for some reason we couldn't agree).
2) Adding nationality info into infobox, similar to infoboxes of Spain and France.
3) Adding ethnic in front of Turks and Kurds in ethnicity field (especially if there is not going to be a nationality field in the infobox)
The discussion is mainly due to the fact that the word "Turk" could mean either ethnicity as in "ethnic Turk", or it can mean citizenship as in "citizen of Turkey"
I brought the dispute here because I doubt anyone in the talk page is going to bother with Wikipedia:Wall of text
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
There is a lot of repetition, and back and forth in the talk page. I think a more structured exchange moderated by a 3rd uninvolved party would improve the communication and hopefully lead to a solution.
Summary of dispute by Uness232
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Austronesier
I won't participate in this DRN. The thread about the disputed content was opened less than 48h hours ago (23:19, 7 March 2024). The article is widely watched, so I believe we can get input from a maximal number of editors in the next days. And if consensus is not reached by then, I decisively prefer RfC over DRN. –Austronesier (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by DeCausa
Per Austronesier. DeCausa (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Turkey 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.
Closed for now as inadequately filed. The filing editor has not included the other editor in the list of parties and has not notified them, although they have named them. Also, it appears that two other editors have now made comments on the article talk page. So, for now, the editors should discuss on the article talk page, and are reminded to be civil, and to comment on content, not contributors. If discussion including the new editors remains inconclusive in 48 hours, a new case request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I am concerned with User:DTParker1000's ongoing edits to Rio Grande 223 and similar pages such as Rio Grande 268. In my opinion the tone involves puffery and broad non-academic claims. I also raised complaints about the reliability of the sources used. I have removed DTParker1000's edits to the 223 page several times, and he has retorted that I am trying to delete the history of the subject. DTParker1000 has stated that he finds my view point on the relevant history to 223 to be too narrow, and dry focused on the mechanical history of the locomotive itself, and that his writing provides relevance to the history of the engine. I have retorted that his writing has caused scope creep, and burdens the article with a broad history lecture full of his opinions and biases that is irrelevant to the locomotive's actual historical importance. I have also contended that the photos of similar (but not the same) locomotives DTParker1000 has added also distract from the article's purported purpose to focus on 223, especially when 223 itself is adequately covered by the photos already in the article. DTParker1000 has also accused me of deleting talk page logs, which I believe is a false accusation.
After some back and forth on WikiProjectTrains and other pages such as Rio Grande 268, the debate escalated on the talk page for 223 with several other editors chiming in within the last few days regarding their opinion on the edits. With multiple editors now chiming in and sharing barbs, there is a lack of consensus on what to do with the 223 page, and it is causing contention with people removing or rewriting segments of DTParker1000's additions to the page. My own emotions are hot enough, that I figure that while I believe my concerns still stand, I need to take a step back and cool my own thoughts on the situation to allow for a more civil tone to enter the debate. A Third Opinion on the 268 page suggested we bring this as a DRN request to resolve it.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have gotten very heated myself in this discussion and would appreciate a more neutral arbitrator to help civilly resolve this. While I do feel passionate about the subject, I admit I haven't been the most civil with DTParker1000 in all of my interactions so far. We need to resolve the scope and content decisions on the 223 page, and determine how to best represent the history of the locomotive beyond DTParker and I's opposing views on how to do it.
Rio Grande 223 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.
Closed as this is not the proper venue to appeal Ukrainian Wikipedia blocks or any Wikipedia blocks for that matter. The editor in question should file appeals following the procedure outlined to them when they were blocked in that wiki. — ♠Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 23:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Unblock my account and have another reviewer verify my contribution.
Telegram 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.
Sweet Baby Inc.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Moon darker on 03:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC).
Closed. I am closing this case as also pending in another forum, WP:AN. It has not been taken to WP:AN by any of the participants, but there is discussion at WP:AN, and they have imposed ECP on the talk page as well as the article. I will make a note at WP:AN that consideration was given to opening a thread here, but that I am deferring to the admins at WP:AN, at least until they have the off-wiki canvassing sized up. Please use good judgment. Be civil and concise. When the AN case is resolved, if there is a content dispute, it can be brought here, and will be discussed under DRN Rule D. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Sweet Baby Inc. is currently the main part of a big controversy in gaming community. Many facts confirm that this company has written the plot (or subplots) of many games over the past decade.
The problem is that it has only been confirmed by individual employees of the company, including the CEO and writers. These employees also started the controversy in the first place, by posting tweets asking to mass-report a Steam group and related Steam curator that was pointing out which games were affected by Sweet Baby Inc. Along with the group and curator, said employee also insisted on mass-reporting the personal account of a person behind the group and curator, quote "since he loves his account so much".
Everything I described above is covered in the article only from Sweet Baby Inc. point of view (or not covered at all) and editors can't reach a consensus on this.
The main problem is: this is not covered well by mass media outlets considered WP:RS, and information provided by reliable sources goes against how majority of actual people from gaming communities see the situation, not to mention it goes against WP:UCS. You can learn more from discussions on the related talk page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Provide guidance on how to maintain neutral point of view when there's not enough reliable sources (because the entire event is unfolding on forums, which are not a reliable source), while adhering to common sense. Reliable sources are not supported by an absolute majority of people in this case, and it doesn't take much research to see why.
Summary of dispute by TE(æ)A,ea.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Rhain
The article's content is heavily based on reliable sources (some non-exceptional claims are cited in an WP:ABOUTSELF manner, but nothing related to the "controversy") and I believe it is written from a neutral point of view. Events occurring on forums have no place on Wikipedia unless considered notable and covered by reliable sources. – Rhain☔ (he/him) 04:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I think that Moon darker's own statements above are sufficiently damning to their own position that I have little to add; they're overtly asking that we ignore WP:RSes based on their own WP:OR, based on what their personal unsourced opinions about how the majority of actual people from gaming communities see the situation, based on what they consider common sense, and based on their personal unsourced belief that reliable sources are not supported by an absolute majority of people in this case}. Obviously, these wouldn't be a reason for us to diverge from reliable sourcing even if it were true, though I don't even think they are true. There's nothing more to say to that - they've fairly clearly indicated that they're here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and "correct" what they see as inaccurate coverage in WP:RSes. Obviously a dispute resolution request cannot grant them the ability to ignore WP:RS or to cite things from forums based on their personal belief that the opinions from those forums are in some hypothetical majority of gamers, nor can they present strung-together screenshots and primary sources pulled out of context to present some sort of argument just because a few people on Twitter believe it... so unless someone has a policy-compliant argument to make here I'm not going to participate further in any DR case.
I should also point out that the dispute is less than a day old and that numerous people have weighed in on the relevant discussion that Moon darker did not include here (virtually all of them, at a glance, clearly opposed to his position); for these reasons, as well, I don't see any value to this attempt at dispute resolution.
As an additional note, I have made a relevant amendment request to ArbCom here, which (while not directly about this dispute or article) does mention it and may preclude participating in this; I think it's clear that this ought to fall under the GamerGate general sanctions, but because it was renamed to gender and sexuality that may not be the case. To reiterate, though, I won't participate either way; there is not enough here to productively engage. --Aquillion (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Since I suspect the fact that I have declined to participate may have been overlooked, I have tagged myself as a non-party and removed myself from the list. My view is that this has already been decided by a clear consensus on the page's talk, and I have no intention of participating further here or being a party to this case. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Harryhenry1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MrOllie
There are many more editors commenting on the talk page than are listed here, and more are arriving due to off-site canvassing. There's an WP:AN thread about the situation, and several editors have been repeatedly bringing up the possibility of WP:RSN discussions on the article talk page. I don't believe that it will be possible to get everyone to follow the DRN rules in this case, so I decline to participate. - MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Katacles
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Dumuzid
I want to say that while I do not doubt the filer's good faith in bringing this here, I am not sure it is particularly susceptible to a dispute resolution process. By my lights, it is simply a question of reliable sourcing for an article. While I certainly know it's not satisfying, I think the only real solution here is to wait and see if there is more 'pickup' in more traditional and reliable (in the Wikipedia sense of the term) outlets. That said, if I can contribute to some kind of resolution, happy to do so. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm respectfully declining being included in this as I am not an involved editor in the dispute, and have never edited the article itself. My only participation is in an administrative capacity with regards to the article's talk page. I would have nothing of value to add to this DR. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Masem
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Sweet Baby Inc. discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
General discussion
Comment on summary by Rhain: the reason this article was created in the first place is "events occuring on forums". I deem it impossible to cover events occuring on forums without covering the primary sources. It might imply that the best way to deal with this situation is to WP:PROD the article in question.
Comment on summary by Aquillion: I noticed that you didn't mention WP:CS. If you take all the numbers into consideration, I don't see how is it possible for you to "don't even think they are true". Either you are acting on behalf of the company in question here, or, uhh, I don't even know what else could it be. Also, it's not about WP:RGW, it's about balance in coverage of both sides.
In general, I propose broader use of WP:CS and WP:SELFSOURCE in this article, because it's simply impossible to cover everything by WP:RS. That's my last comment until a third party arrives to handle this matter.
Correction: When I mentioned WP:CS earlier, I meant WP:UCS, that's why Aquillion couldn't understand what I was saying below. Apologies for that. --Moon darker (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand your references to WP:CS (though I have cited WP:RS and numerous aspects of it to you repeatedly, which is the really important policy here.) What part of WP:CS or WP:RS do you think helps you? You've vaguely indicated that you that you believe WP:ABOUTSELF / WP:SELFSOURCE could somehow help you add your personal theory of what the controversy is "really" about to the article, since you're disappointed that none of the WP:RSes who have covered it have described it the way you like... but I've already explained why that's not workable. You need to actually readWP:ABOUTSELF (and WP:SYNTH, which is related here.) WP:ABOUTSELF is not usable for exceptional claims about third parties, for self-serving claims, or for structuring an argument out of primary sources that isn't stated in any of them. WP:ABOUTSELF is for things like uncontroversial biographical details or for "this company has X employees", not for flashpoints in major controversies. The very fact that you want to use WP:ABOUTSELF to lay out your personal theory for what you think the controversy is "really about" shows why it is utterly unusable here. Again, these are not obscure complicated niche aspects of how sourcing works, or niche details of sourcing and policy that are up for debate and interpretation, but fundamental aspects of how we write Wikipedia articles. We do have secondary sources, and they're very clear; you just disagree with their focus and conclusions. And that's fine! The solution to that is to write letters to them asking for corrections and retractions, or to wait and hope that other sources cover it in a different way, not to demand that Wikipedia ignore its sourcing policies. (And, for the record, the article was created a month ago, although it was stubbified and draftified until the recent controversy led to it being re-expanded.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from twisting my words. Like I said on the article talk page, I want to use WP:SELFSOURCE to add citations of tweets by the Sweet Baby Inc. employees. Moon darker (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Expanding on my last answer, the initial discovery of Sweet Baby Inc. happened around half a year ago, but back then employees of the company didn't attack any independent curators, and nobody dug too deep into it. I'd assume that initial drafts of the article date back to around that time frame. -- Moon darker (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
If you feel it's impossible to cover the event fully without relying on forums and other primary sources, then the article will never cover it fully to your liking—it's not Wikipedia's job to right great wrongs, just to report information that is verifiable using reliable sources. I will not be responding here further (for now) per the notice atop this section. Thanks. – Rhain☔ (he/him) 07:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Please advise if you want to continue the discussion here, it seems like there are only 2 actively involved users at the moment as Aquillion have declined to participate and TE(æ)A,ea. is yet to show up. --Moon darker (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Questions regarding DRN procedures
Robert McClenon, please advise if IP users can participate in DRNs? Can't find any info besides that the filing user must be logged in. The IP user in question has called an administrator (Masem) in, and I'm afraid it might separate discussion into several unrelated threads
Also is ok in general to add users to open DRNs that are at risk of going stale, considering reaching consensus on the talk page would be quite unlikely? There should be a place to discuss things productively. --Moon darker (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
First Statement by Moderator (Sweet Baby)
I am ready to act as the moderator for this case. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate that you agree to conform to the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.
The purpose of article dispute resolution is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to state, concisely, what they want to change in the article, or what they want left alone that another editor wants to change. Do not provide a long explanation of why you want or do not want the chance. We may or may not go into that later. Just tell what you want to change.
Also, it appears that some of the issues may have to do with the reliability of sources. If there are any issues with the reliability of sources, please identify them as such now, and we will ask Reliable Source Noticeboard to evaluate them. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement 1.1 by Moderator (Sweet Baby)
It has been brought to my attention that the content dispute involves the contentious topic of controversies over gender and sexuality. We will be conducting this moderated discussion under DRN Rule D. When DRN Rule D is in effect, it is necessary for participants to acknowledge that they understand that the ArbCom contentious topic sanctions are in effect. Please read DRN Rule D and state that you agree to comply with it. I am still asking the same initial questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
First Statements by Editors (Sweet Baby)
First statement by Moon darker
I agree to follow ground rules described in DRN Rule D and I understand that the ArbCom contentious topic sanctions are in effect.
I want to expand on current text of "Online backlash and harassment" part of the article. Ideally, by including information from primary sources to explain the reasoning behind actions of various gaming communities per talk page. If you believe this request is a viable one for RSN, it would be great.
Alternative 1 is to revert to this revision of the page and reconsider used sources for this particular article via RSN.
In its current state, the article seems to be about as neutral as it gets given the current set of sources. It still has factual problems that need to be addressed, for example: Within weeks, the group had more than 210,000 followers - it's not the group (which has 107k subscribers), it's the related curator - but that's on the "reliable"source, not to mention problems with more exceptional claims.
It's still pretty alarming that we've been discussing similar changes for almost a week and article editors refused to compromise, but now that problems with article were put under a magnifying glass by external actors, many issues were addressed overnight.
For now, I have exhausted all my energy to deal with further issues about this article.
If anybody cares, please do discuss both currently used sources, and ones that are ignored, but mentioned on the talk page via WP:RSN. Have a good one. --Moon darker (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2024 (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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– Discussion in progress.
– New discussion.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.