Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRN)
Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to threads Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread(purge cache)
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution and get assistance to the right place; request for comment, conduct RFC, mediation or other noticeboard, if involving other issues. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Button rediriger.png to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember guidelines and policy when discussing issues. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, and their role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. They also collect the monthly metrics for the noticeboard.

The current co-ordinator is TransporterMan (talk · contribs).

Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. Comment on the contributions not the contributor. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.

  • Please refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only.

Check that a notice was delivered to each person you add to the filing. If missing, add {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page then sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".

If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
  • The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before requesting help at DRN.
  • This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
  • For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:
  • Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
  • Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
  • Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix 2In Progress Prisonermonkeys (t) 2014-11-01 08:14:00 Keithbob (t) 2014-11-25 18:20:00 FelixRosch (t) 2014-11-25 21:42:00
Talk:Energy returned_on_energy_invested#Wikitable_EROEI_-_energy_sources_in_2013 1New (t) 2014-11-16 00:16:00 Keithbob (t) 2014-11-22 02:55:00 FelixRosch (t) 2014-11-22 15:52:00
Talk:Electronic cigarette#Removal_of_bullet_points_in_a_list_and_renaming_the_section 6Resolved AlbinoFerret (t) 2014-11-18 20:01:00 Keithbob (t) 2014-11-24 21:43:00 Keithbob (t) 2014-11-24 21:43:00
Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb 8Failed Saadkhan12345 (t) 2014-11-21 11:45:00 Mdann52 (t) 2014-11-26 11:13:00 Mdann52 (t) 2014-11-26 11:13:00
2015 Formula One season 2In Progress Eightball (t) 2014-11-22 10:07:00 Mdann52 (t) 2014-11-26 11:08:00 Mdann52 (t) 2014-11-26 11:08:00
Talk:Anusara School_of_Hatha_Yoga#Anusara_School_of_Hatha_Yoga_yoga 7Closed (t) 2014-11-24 18:23:00 None n/a Cannolis (t) 2014-11-24 23:47:00
Talk:Pep Guardiola 1New Walter Görlitz (t) 2014-11-25 05:05:00 Keithbob (t) 2014-11-25 18:29:00 RangerRichard (t) 2014-11-26 06:42:00
Talk:Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati 7Closed (t) 2014-11-25 11:54:00 Mdann52 (t) 2014-11-26 11:03:00 Mdann52 (t) 2014-11-26 11:03:00
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 11:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


Current disputes[edit]

Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Prisonermonkeys on 08:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The issue concerns the inclusion of crowd attendance figures for the race. Haken arizona believes that the attendance figures should be included. I, on the other hand, have objected on the grounds that the sources he has provided have been flawed - they variously fail WP:SPS, WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE, have proven to be imprecise and contradictory, especially for a piece of information that is ultimately of little to no importance in the article. Despite repeated attempts to point this out, Haken arizona has refused to find alternate sources. The article has recently been locked following an edit war, but the moment the lock was lifted, Haken arizona immediately started editing his preferred content into the article, and the debate on the talk page has started getting personal.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried explaining what makes a source useable and what a better source would look like. I have demonstrated this to other users, who I think have been persuaded by my argument.

How do you think we can help?

Demonstrate the importance of SPS, RS, VERIFIABLE and the need for accuracy to Haken arizona. Also establish the notability of individual pieces of information to the article, and highlight the need for precision in sources and articles and show why close enough is not good enough.

Summary of dispute by Haken arizona[edit]

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

Tass Russia is recognized news agency. It is their event and they will have the correct data on event's success. They report 65,000 spectators attended the event, indicating fully sold out event. This is important to add to the page. It indicates how successful was the event. It improves the quality of encyclopedia, in future people will be able to see if the event did good or did it flop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talkcontribs) 16:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jirka.h23[edit]

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

Talk:2014 Russian Grand Prix discussion[edit]

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

A list of the sources used, and the problems with them:

  • The first, from referred to crowd figures on the Saturday of the event. However, the field in the infobox specifically refers to the attendance on the Sunday.
  • The second and third sources, from CNN and a Russian news service, gave the crowd figures as 55,000 and 65,000.
    • The CNN article also referred to "near to capacity", but gave no indication of how near to capacity "near capacity" is.
  • The latest source, introduced today, is one I have never heard of. I'm a long-time editor of Formula 1 articles, and I have never seen it used, and I cannot verify it.

I have repeatedly explained both these problems and how to overcome them on the article talk page, but to no avail. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Tass Russia is recognized news agency. It is their event and they will have the correct data on event's success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haken arizona (talkcontribs) 16:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor's note.First a technical announcement. Prisonermonkeys has been blocked from editing for 72 hours for edit-warring on this subject. Haken arizona has been blocked for the same offense as well for 48 hours. So neither of them is going to be able to contribute to this discussion within the next 48 hours. Prisonermonkeys will not be able to contribute for another 24 hours after that.
On the matter, In my humble opinion I think it would be helpful if we had the links to the various sources that have been used to justify the information here, so that one can explore them and compare them. I must admit that, having thought about it long and hard now, I too think that PM's concerns regarding some of the sources seem to be justified. Tvx1 (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here (and the current Coordinator), I am neither "taking" this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but wanted to make some administrative comments. I've taken the liberty of adding Tvx1 as a party and moving his initial comments to a summary section, above, to clarify that he's not here as a DRN volunteer. As of this writing two editors are still blocked. If they resume editing after their blocks expire, this case will be ready for a volunteer to open it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@TransporterMan; Drop in comment from Interwiki Wikiprojects. The two editors share the principle among many Grand Prix followers of not backing down one inch in disputes. If the two editors agree to suspend edit dispute on the article page and agree to follow Dispute Resolution process here then I have read both the German version and the Russian version of the page and might be able to moderate. @TransporterMan, It may be worth your posting a note to the two editors that they have opened a Dispute section here and that normally they are assumed to await the results of the resolution process before making further edits on the article itself. FelixRosch (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor's note. Rather than someone needing to sift through yards of article and talk page drama, a Volunteer could perhaps resolve this by visiting this latest version of the article and deciding whether this updated info about attendance in the intro is encyclopedic, and whether its two references actually support it. Moriori (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
After reviewing the edit, I personally feel that the information is encyclopedic and that it is properly supported by the reference. (TASS is a major Russian news agency, so I think it would be safe to say that it's a reliable source.) --Biblioworm 00:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As I have outlined on my talk page, the attendance figures should not be included in the article lead. They were never an issue during the race weekend, and including them in the lead overstates their importance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Quite. While I have no problem with the figures being the article providing people are satisfied as to their reliability, they certainly do not belong in the lead paragraph. Infobox and/or article text, background info or somesuch. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I still have reservations about the TASS source. It says "over 65,000", and while it might be reliable, it's way too vague for my liking. Everything else is accurately recorded; we say that Hamilton's pole time was 1:38.513, not 1:38.5 and just round it off. So when the TASS source says "over 65,000", how far over 65,000 are we talking about? And it's contradicted by the CNN source, which says a "near capacity crowd of 55,000". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
You make some good points, @Prisonermonkeys. I'd say that CNN and TASS can both be trusted, but if trusted sources conflict, it's a little difficult to figure out which one to trust. We could always say something along the lines of "Attendance estimates range from 55,000 to over 65,000 people", but that is probably a bit too vague to be helpful. --Biblioworm 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
That is probably too vague, @Biblioworm. We have always aimed for precision in the articles, and giving a range of 15,000 is far too broad for inclusion. Attendance data might be nice if it is available, but it is not so important that we can or should forget our standards in order to include it. If it is worth including, it is worth being precise about. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
If two reliable sources conflict, then it's very difficult to say which one is correct. I'd be a bit more inclined to trust TASS over CNN, because TASS is native to the nation of the race and probably provided more detailed coverage. Because of the contradiction within sources, however, I'm beginning to lean towards omitting the attendance figures from the article. I'd would like to hear more from @Haken arizona concerning these contradictions, though. --Biblioworm 02:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Attendance figures are also being inconsistently applied—the 2014 United States Grand Prix article says over 230,000 people attended, but as the venue cannot hold that many people, it's evidently the sum across the three days. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Drop-in comment from InterWiki Wikiprojects. As a neutral comment from both the Russian version and the German version of this page, neither one mentions the attendance stats as relevant to those language versions of this article. It also appears that only one of the dispute editors is participating here even though both have edit rights restored. If both editors agree to continue the discussion then both need to be heard from soon. @Haken Arizona needs to participate for this discussion to re-commence. If @TransporterMan could ping both editors to see if they wish to continue the resolution process then that's fine. Otherwise, no response in 24hrs from both of the disputing editors seems to indicate this matter is no longer being pursued and it is a candidate for being closed as stale. FelixRosch (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@FelixRosch: I'm here and I want to participate further, but I feel that there is little more that I can contribute without further input from @Haken arizona. If he does not, we could possibly resolve the dispute by removing the attendance data on the grounds that the TASS source is a) vague and b) possibly contradicted by the CNN source, and that attendance data is being inconsistently applied both across English-language articles and across multiple Wikis. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys; Since I am neutral on this question at this time, I can confirm my comment from earlier today. There is no reason that you could not contact @TransporterMan and ask him for his view and possibly for him to ping @Haken arizona. If there is no response in 24hrs from @Haken then this matter could be assessed as stale and it could be closed by @TransporterMan. If @Haken wishes to continue then he can reply here, and I have read both the Russian version and the German version of this page and can still offer a neutral assessment. FelixRosch TALK 21:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I just messaged @Haken arizona on his talk page and asked him to participate here. @FelixRosch: While I do think that we should close this as stale if Haken does not reply, I don't 24 hours is enough time. Perhaps we should wait until the end of the weekend? --Biblioworm 22:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Biblioworm; Yes, the end of the week-end or Monday morning sounds about right. If @Haken arizona wishes to continue he may reply, otherwise you are justified to assess the matter as stale and you can close it on the time frame you indicate. FelixRosch TALK 22:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Haken arizona is here. Attendance data is important, it shows how well the event did in comparison with events in other years. It is up to 3rd party to decide this because I was not able to resolve the issue with Prisonermonkeys.

@Haken arizona: there are still major issues with the sources provided, which you have never addressed. For one, the TASS article says that "over 65,000 people" attended.
Firstly, if more than 65,000 people attended, how many more attended?
Secondly, why are the attendance figures so important to the article that we should willingly continue including them even though the source is so vague and sub-standard?
More importantly, the CNN source you originally gave said the event had a "near capacity crowd of 55,000". Now, we have TASS saying "over 65,000 people". If TASS and CNN are equally reliable and equally reputable, how do you explain the difference of over 10,000 people between the two? And again, how and why is the inclusion of the attendance figure so important that we should willingly ignore such a massive contradiction? That alone is enough to justify its removal from the article.
Finally, why are you inconsistently applying this information? You updated the 2014 United States Grand Prix to show an attendance figure of over 237,000 people, but the circuit cannot hold that many at once—the figure clearly shows the aggregate attendance over three days. But in the Russian GP article, you only have the attendance for the race. So why the inconsistency, and why is the figure so important that we can willingly ignore it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Haken arizona and Prisonermonkeys; Both editors appear ready to defend their positions here. If both of you are agreed to accepting to follow strict WP:Lede and WP:MoS policy and guidelines then I am able to offer a neutral assessment of this discussion for resolution. Both editors would need to make a short comment to affirm this and the mediation can start. Otherwise the matter can be assessed as stale and suitable for being closed on this basis after 24 hours if both editors are not present. FelixRosch TALK 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I am happy to do that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonermonkeys: My first edit was correct one, the TASS source. But you said can't be 65,000 because venue holds only 55,000. Later you corrected yourself stating there are 55,000 seats and 10,000 in general standing area so that makes it 65,000. Then you went with your edit war about the number, then I went with CNN source which was just journalist guess. Then you went with your edit war again. Bottom line is you don't want any attendance data there and refuse to reason. You got blocked for 72hrs and me only for 48hrs, which means moderators found you more guilty than me. Attendance data can be vague like weather can be. Because it is impossible to account for every person at the event so the number is usually rounded off. USA GP attendance data is sourced directly from the event organizer. It is their reputation on the line and not Wikipedia's. I post what they report. User can click on the source and get more detail about the attendance where they can read if it is for sunday or for whole weekend. You are free to go to Holocaust page and argue 6 million figure, why is the number vague there?
@FelixRosch: Now you heard both arguments.
I have said it before and I will say it again: I am not opposed to the inclusion of attendance figures on principle. I am opposed to the inclusion of attendance figures—as I would be with any addition to any article—when they use sources that are so clearly flawed. They are not so important to the reader's understanding of the article that we must include them, even if it means using a faulty source. I feel that if we find ourselves in such a situation, then it is better to leave them out altogether.
To my mind, the issues that need to be resolved here are:
1) The importance of attendance figures to these articles as a whole.
2) The obvious issues with the sources that have been presented in this specific instance.
And I would suggest that you give up on the "go and argue the Holocaust death toll figure" argument. It's inappropriate to say the least. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Current summary of dispute[edit]

(this summary was replaced and updated below by the 12 Nov update section)

@Haken arizona has indicated an interest in posting a one or two sentence edit on the race attendance statistics in the main body of the article, and also wishes to post a one sentence summary of it into the Lead section. @Prisonermonkeys appears to wish to limit this edit to a single sentence, if that, within the main body of the article and not include a summary of it in the Lead or Infobox section unless verification of reliable sources is satisfied. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

To both editors; @Prisonermonkeys and @Haken ariona. Both editors have been asked to agree to follow strict WP:Lede and WP:MoS policy, which @Prisonermonkeys has done, and I ask for @Haken to affirm this also. I ask for both of you to sign all your edits here with 4 tilde as endorsing your further statements. If the above is a fair summary of your positions then @Haken ought to provide the text he wishes to put into the main body of the article in quote marks within his reply here below exactly as he wishes it to appear in the article along with cites in parenthesis (indicate also exactly which section in the main body of the article you want to place it). @Prisonermonkeys and @Haken; If this summary in not what you are indicating then this is the time to state your amendations/abridgements. Tomorrow is veterans day and everyone gets until Wednesday morning to reply (over 24 hrs), and that is when I shall reply to both posts. Otherwise this matter may be seen as stale and may be closed if left without a response from each editor by Wednesday at 12 Noon. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I do not agree with the above. My position is that if attendance figures are to be included, then they should only appear in the infobox, provided that they are accurate, reliably sourced, and in a format consistent with other, similar articles; the only time they should appear in the body of the article is if it can be demonstrated through multiple, reliable sources that the attendance figures for that race were a major issue.
Accuracy is the key here. "Over 65,000 people" is too generalised for my liking. It's like saying Hamilton's pole time was 1:38.5 instead of 1:38.513. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys There is a proof you just refuse to agree no mater what kind of argument is put forward. You can't compare race car time that is measured by sophisticated computers to be precise within .00001 of a second and attendance figures. When masses of people are counted, the number is usually general in nature and rounded off. I don't care if there is a number of attendance, I am ok even if it is quoted as being up to capacity, sold out, very good turn out. This indicate if the event was commercially successful or not. This is very important especially in the USA. Promoters can charge more money from advertisement if the event gets attended well. @FelixRosch I made my argument, I posted my statement, I don't know what else to say. Haken arizona (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not an indicator that the event was commercially successful. In order for the event to be a commercial success, it has to make a profit. You would need to prove that, again with a reliable and verifiable source. And the commercial success or failure of the event is not within the scope of the article.
Also, it's not difficult to count spectators. They need their tickets to get in, and those tickets can be counted as they enter the venue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutral editor here. Having never considered the subject before, it is surprising how 'unofficial' attendance records are in racing. The source that struck the biggest chord was this one: according to a USAToday article, Nascar stopped giving 'official' attendance altogether in 2013.[1] Tracks can give "crowd estimates" on their own prerogative. This means that for current Nascar events there can be no official counts, only track estimates. Would it be a fair compromise to state that attendance would only be included on those races for which Nascar gave an 'official' attendance number?EBY (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes, but NASCAR articles aren't within the scope of the Formula 1 WikiProject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Update of summary 12 Nov 2014[edit]

To @Haken arizona and @Prisonermonkeys; Both editors have answered and signed their comments to continue the resolution process. @Haken arizon proposes to add the following edit to record the attendance figures as follows:

According to CNN and TASS, the attendance stood at near capacity with more than 55,000 spectators on the third and the main day of the event.[2][3] (updated to single sentence proposed edit on 13 Nov 2014)

In response to this edit, @Prisonermonkeys requires a second citation in order to verify the single source claiming that a second source previously presented from CNN cited slightly different attendance stats. @Haken arizona, since the two sources give comparable though not identical attendance stats, would you be willing to move towards consensus by (i) adding the CNN citation to your edit and (ii) stating that there were "more than 55,000 spectators", the lower CNN number, without further amplification. @Prisonermonkeys; It seems more on point to divide this dispute into two phases and first decide if the material proposed for the main body of the article can be defended before deciding if it can go into the Infobox. WP:Lede and Infobox Wikipedia policy is that they can only summarize material which is in the main body of the article, and therefor the issue of this proposed edit in the main body of the article ought to be settled first one way or the other. If both editors could respond during the next 24hrs and both sign your response then the resolution process can continue. Otherwise the matter can be seen as stale and may be closed on this basis if both editors do not respond in the next 24hrs. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's still not specific enough for me. If this is going to be included at all, then I feel that it needs to be accurate. As it is, it is simply too vague. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonmonkeys; While waiting for @Haken response could you elaborate just a little. That is, if @Haken has two references and decides he wants to include attendance stats in the main body of the article ("more than 55,000 spectators"), then you still want something in addition to this? If you have something specific in mind or an example you can cite of something similar which would be acceptable to you, then this may aid @Haken in his evaluation. FelixRosch (TALK) 20:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC) @FelixRosch I am sure Vladimir Putin did not buy a ticket to attend his own Grand Prix, that would be absurd, he attended, so if 65,000 tickets were sold, there are VIP people who did not have to buy the ticket and have attended the event, this officialy makes it factual to say that "more than" 65,000 people attended the event. There are 5 or 6 major networks that reported the event as "sold out". All neutral editors tend to side with me. prisonermonkeys is simply being way out of line and unreasonable. Haken arizona (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Coordinator's note about DRN auto-closing: Everyone should note that the normal life span for a DRN case is two weeks and that span will end for this case at 08:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC). Once that time passes, this case will be automatically archived by our bot (and closed by implication) if there is not at least one edit to it every 24 hours. The volunteers working on the case have the right to extend its life by changing the date in the DoNotArchiveUntil comment at the top of the case to a later date, but generally should not do so unless they feel that there is a good chance of successful resolution in a reasonable period of time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Confirming notice from @TransporterMan for bot archive in 48hrs. There has been no update from one editor since 11 November. Bot is on autopilot to archive in 48hrs unless both editors are participating. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am participating, I just laid my argument, what else can I do. Moderator should decide quickly. Haken arizona (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

FelixRosch, I feel that the attendance figures are not specific enough. The TASS article says "over 65,000" people attended. So my question is how many more? If it was, say, 65,711 people, then the article should say 65,711 (with a reliable, verifiable source, of course). A rounded figure simply isn't good enough, and if we look at articles like 2014 United States Grand Prix, we know that it's possible to get those specific numbers. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Prisonmonkeys and @Haken arizona; This proposed edit is coming down to this single sentence if I understand both of your positions concerning the double cited one sentence edit for the main body of the article:
According to CNN and TASS, the attendance stood at near capacity with more than 55,000 spectators on the third and the main day of the event.[4][5]
@Haken needs to affirm if this is the form of the edit which he wishes to defend here at this time. Simply state "yes" or "no" if this is the edit you are defending at this time. @Prisonermonkeys; Your example from 2014 US Grand Prix raises a second issue which may distract us here since that page introduces material into the Infobox which is not a summary of material in the main body of the article as required by WP:MoS for WP:Lede and Infobox policy and guidelines. Also, one of the two cites given there does not even give the attendance figures. The focus here needs to be on point, namely, this one sentence version of the proposed edit with two citations to support. It seems that @Haken only wishes to make the point that the attendance stats were near capacity though its up to him to clarify exactly what his intentions are in his edit. Both editors should need to try to respond to this version within 24 hours since bot is on autopilot to close here in 48 hours unless there are daily 24 hour responses. FelixRosch (TALK) 20:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I am for what ever source is reporting to be included, in main body.Haken arizona (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys; Earlier today @Haken arizona has indicated that he is willing to move toward consensus and drop his two sentence edit in favor of a one sentence edit with two citations to show near-capacity attendance stats at the event as shown in boldface above. It is for you to indicate a confirm for the edit or to respond. To both editors, @Haken arizona and @Prisonermonkeys, unless there is a response by Monday morning then a bot is currently on autopilot to archive this dispute. Either one of you may request that @TransporterMan extend this bot archive if you request a short extension from him, otherwise bot is set to archive by Monday morning. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't want extention, I want a moderator to decide alreadyHaken arizona (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Haken arizona; Normally the disputing editors are both allowed to have time to respond and @Prisonermonkeys has been reliable so far in his response time and should be allowed to make his reply over the week-end. Both editors have another 24hrs to add any further information. If any of the other participating editors have any drop-in comments or opinions then this is also the time to make them. If no further information or reply is made then bot is on autopilot to close by Monday morning unless at least one of the editors responds by that time when I shall plan to make my comments on Monday morning. FelixRosch (TALK) 20:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

Uninvolved editor's notice Prisonermonkeys has again been blocked for edit warring (on an unrelated article). This time for a week. As the block was initiated on 14 November, that user will not be able to contribute until 21 November. Tvx1 (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@TransporterMan, @Tvx1, @Haken arizona; Confirm that block reported by @Tvx1 is in place until this upcoming weekend on Saturday. Since two administrators are involved at this point, it may make sense to see if @Prisonermonkeys will be willing to move toward consensus and meet @Haken's move toward strengthening his edit and @Haken's already stated offer to move towards consensus. @TansporterMan can extend the resolution process until this weekend for this to happen, otherwise the dispute only has one participant and shall be archived by bot within 48 hrs. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Extended to November 26. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Felix, thanks for shepherding this rather long drawn out discussion. I hope there can be some resolution soon. Cheers!-- KeithbobTalk 20:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You now can see that editor Prisonermonkeys is out of line and totally delusional. He has been blocked 3 different times this year alone. Can't believe you guys are giving him all this time to argue his point were you can see no source is good for him. Haken arizona (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What may or may not have happened elsewhere is of no consequence to this discussion. I have repeatedly outlined what I think would qualify as a good source—one that is reliable, verifiable, and specific. If we cannot find a source that satisfies all three of these criteria, then I would prefer that we leave it out entirely. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
To both editors; @Haken arizona has offered to move toward consensus by shortening his edit to a one sentence version with 2 reliable sources confirming near capacity attendance. @Prisonermonkeys has stated that he would prefer precise statistics once these are available even if the current sources are reliable. Can @Prisonermonkeys move towards consensus in response to @Haken's offer to move toward consensus if @Haken agrees that @Prisonermonkeys may update the current estimate (which has 2 reliable cites) using the precise stats once they become published. This would allow the article to presently confirm the fact that the audience stats were at near capacity (that is, the event appeared to be successful in terms of attendance), and the estimated "Over 55,000" figure may be updated to more precise stats in the future by @Prisonermonkeys when and if they are eventually published by reliable sources? Both editors should respond to this within the next day or two since bot has currently been reset to automatically archive during the holidays next week. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
FelixRosch, I'm sorry, but I can't move towards that consensus. I don't think it's valid. I don't see the need for attendance figures in the article—their importance to the article in any form has not been established, much less why they are so important that we can leave vague and imprecise content in the article indefinitely. It is the least-important piece of information in the article, and if the article had to be trimmed down, it would be the first thing to go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to move forward with consensus Haken arizona (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed resolution[edit]

Uninvolved editor's proposal Pardon me for barging in, but may I propose a resolution initiative myself? As as an experienced WP:Formula 1 editor, I can't shed the feeling that this issue is to tough for two editors to decide just between them even with the help of the moderators. So I would like to propose two things:

1) The editors involved in this dispute continue to refrain from editing the article concerned until the matter has been resolved, like they have successfully been able to do for quite a while now.

2) We initiate a discussion over at WT:WikiProject Formula One (maybe even an RFC) so as to allow for a wider input from the community of WP:Formula One editors in order to achieve a well-supported consensus on the subject. Tvx1 (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys and @Haken arizona; There is an offer from an experienced editor to take this to RfC and using some of the advantages of that process. It is up to each of you to decide if that route is preferred for each of you. @Keithbob; This discussion is set to archive by bot on 26 Nov and if there is no response from both editors by then this case shall automatically archive by bot. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This does not sound fine with my, I want this resolved. Haken arizona (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

An RfC will allow more input from other editors. It's the course of action that is most likely going to bring about a resolution. Unless you want FelixRosch to make an executive decision. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
To both editors; @Haken arizona has moved toward consensus by satisfying the three original issues raised in this discussion: WP:SPS, WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE. @Haken is presenting a one sentence version of his edit with 2 verifiable citations. @Prisonermonkeys wishes to retain the right to update these stats with more precise citations when these reliable sources become available in the future. If both editors are in agreement with this status then I am prepared for signing onto this as satisfying the original issues raised with both editors having moved towards consensus. Whichever route you pursue, each editor should note that bot is set to archive on 26 Nov in 24 hours. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that is what I wanted all along. What ever best source for attendance numbers to stay. Then if in future better source has update, then it can be changedHaken arizona (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears you may be on the verge of some resolution so I've extended the auto close date a few more days. However if discussion stalls and there appears to be no significant progress towards resolution than it's likely the DRN coordinator will manually close the case even before the expiration date triggers the bot. At this point, after 3 weeks we need to see things moving steadily towards resolution. If not, the case will need to be closed. Felix and others have made some good proposals. I hope the participants can agree to a compromise soon. Cheers!-- KeithbobTalk 18:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I still feel that the right to edit and update the article should include the right to remove it entirely if no sufficient source can be found. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
To both editors, @Prisonermonkeys and @Haken arizona; Yes, yet all parties are agreed that the right to refine/remove would need to have a reliable source WP:RS in order to stick. Still, in that case, if in the future you find a contradictory citation, then you would be correct that if you have a reliable source which contradicts the 2 cites from TASS and CNN, then you would have the right to challenge under WP:RS. That is, WP:RS, reliable sources would need to be followed if that happens sometime in the future. For now, WP:SPS, WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE, are consistent with @Haken's current 1 sentence version of the edit with 2 cites as presented at this time, and both editors can accept having moved toward consensus. FelixRosch (TALK) 21:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Energy returned_on_energy_invested#Wikitable_EROEI_-_energy_sources_in_2013[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by on 00:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Repeated deletion of a peer-reviewed paper and its accompanying table, which details the Energy return on investment of a number of energy sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on the talk page, and clearly explained to interested parties that its values are in-line with that found by other respectable researchers such as those in the IEEE etc.

How do you think we can help?

Make the reverting editors aware that wikipedia is a platform to summarize peer-reviewed science on an issue, and if they do not desist in deleting the peer reviewed paper and its table, it may possibly be required to protect the page from vandals.

Summary of dispute by Rfassbind[edit]

First Response:

Prologue - ad hominen: First, let me mention a personal matter: I questioned the objectivity of a publication by Weissbach et al.. This, however, does not give User the license to attack my devotion to a number of related articles on wikipedia, since this dispute is not about me against the author of the publication. It's about whether the publication is in line with the overall consensus and whether it should deserve that much of attention. I have already ignored a previous accusation of me "feigning the inability to find the [appropriate] reference", just because I added a "citation needed" to an unsourced wikitable. Please note, that I will refrain myself from any further discussion if these attacks continue, and I kindly ask any wikipedia admin for guidance.
EROI: Energy Returned on Energy Invested is a complex subject, especially when renewables are compared to conventional energy sources. This article in scientific american gives an overview (note the mentioned EROI for nuclear of 5). The study in question is by D. Weißbach. On the talk page I have pointed out that the results for photovoltaics do not match other sources, in particular when comparing the related Energy Payback Time (6 years vs 2 years, see Fraunhofer Report, page page 30 and 32, for multi-Si in Germany for 2011). A much more comprehensive criticism of Weissbach's study I found here
Argument From Authority: User emphasizes that the Weissbach study is peer-reviewed and therefore has to be included in the article. I have pointed out that Marco Raugei has openly criticized the publication's methodology. I suggest to consider his opinion. He is a cited author on important publications for the International Energy Agency Methodology Guidelines on LCA of PV Electricity who carried out research in the fields of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), environmental management and sustainability analysis, while for Daniel Weissbach is a nuclear physicist and has published about the Dual-Fluid-Reactor (what I have found so far).
The article Low-carbon power also contains a wikitable displaying data from the Weissbach study.
Summary: In my view there are so many question marks about one single publication, that it is hard for me to understand how it deserves that much of attention. After all, the article Energy returned on energy invested is not about German photovoltaics. One could as well cite the EROI of the new Topaz Solar Farm in the Mojave desert, as those figures would certainly be quite different (modern installation, high insolation in the US-South-West, a much faster payback time using CdTe PV technology, etc.). The fact that the Weisbach study assigns the highest EROI of 78 to nuclear, seems not that surprising. Also, the other chart in the article, commons:File:EROI - Ratio of Energy Returned on Energy Invested - USA.svg, strongly contrasts this claim. Last but not least: User seems to have used figures that are not even in the Weissbach study. If I'm not mistaken, he averaged himself the figures for PV and coal without even mentioning it. -- Rfassbind (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Last Response:

With all due respect, these attacks are not acceptable. Whether I am "being honest" or a "anti-science dogmatists" is not for User to decide. This is name-calling. I also have a hard time to conceive why I should be "blocked" from Wikipedia for adding a "citation needed" tag to the article and posting my response on a dispute to which I have been summoned by that very same person. I therefore do not intend to continue this dispute, as previously said. This is all very disturbing.
Here are my recommendations for the article Energy returned on energy invested
  • Redundancy: The article already contains an EROI chart. Any reader will most likely be confused by the divergent figures.
  • Improvement: the article needs improvement and explain that there are two different EROI figures. One is the Primary Energy (EROIPE) and the other EROIEL for the produced electricity. They differ by an factor of 3 as the thermal conversion efficiency is about 31%. It is crucial for the article to explain to the reader that renewables such as PV and wind produce electricity, while the Prime Energy of fossil fuels do not yet consider the thermal losses when electricity is generated from it. Otherwise it is not an apple-to-apple comparison.
  • Discrepancies: This publication:13 by Marco Raugei gives both EROI-figures (EROIEL of 5.9 and recalculated in PE-equivalent EROIPE-eq of 19) for multi-silicon rooftop PV. An EROI of 5.9 is not the same as the 3.9 by Weissbach. Combined with a different life-time used for PV systems, this results in the discrepancy I pointed out earlier (Energy Payback Time of 6 years).
  • While Marco Raugei worked for IEA's PVPS programme, an intergovernmental organisation, funded by dozens of industrial countries, the Weissbach publication origines from Institute for Solid-State Nuclear Physics is a non-profit research organizations that asks for paypal contributions.
  • The study in question should not be given that much of attention, as it cherry-picks and uses outdated data and promotes EROI figures for nuclear that are in line with the nuclear industry. (See website of the World Nuclear Association)
  • A wikipedia article should be as international as possible. This study concentrates on Germany (I have made the point that one might as well choose to use CdTe-technology figures. Both, German PV and CdTe-technology account for about 5% of worldwide deployment in 2014. The result, however, would be quite different, as the EROIPE-eq of CdTe is 38, or 10 times higher than the Weissbach figure).
  • Apologies for my wrong assumption about the averaged figure. I wasn't aware that key-figures of the study have to be looked up in a bar-chart diagram without any further explanation. -- Rfassbind (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by opening IP user[edit]

Summary of dispute by[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by[edit]

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

Talk:Energy returned_on_energy_invested#Wikitable_EROEI_-_energy_sources_in_2013 discussion[edit]

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

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Just a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Energy returned on energy invested} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: Only User:Rfass is participating after over 48 hours after filing. @TransporterMan may ping the involved IP editors to see if a response is taking place. Note also that filing IP editor is not on the list of participants for comment/summary. If there is no response within 24 hours from filing editor or otherwise then this matter may be assessed as stale and archived as such. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The filing editor here I replied before the above warnings "24 hours" elapsed, therefore it is not "stale". So no, don't delete, and please, I welcome all to help in the dispute. . (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrative side note: The recommended length of a summary is 2,000 characters. You may keep your current summary length but be forewarned it could scare away potential DRN volunteers as many don't want to read a wall of text, especially at the onset of a case. There will be plenty of time to lay out the details of your position as the case develops. So consider cutting it back to 'summary' form and leaving out the references to other editor's actions or behavior which are inappropriate for DRN. -- KeithbobTalk 20:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved editor: Both editors have now responded. It would be useful if the filing editor would indicate if the multiple sources are being presented for a single edit which is being disputed, or, if the multiple sources are being used for the intention of multiple edits. Also, IP editor @ should note that if this matter is undertaken by a mediator, although it is not necessary to register as a user to edit, it would make it easier for participating editors to contact you and message you once a dispute is undertaken by someone. Its up to you, however, since there is no rule that states you need to register a user name. FelixRosch (TALK) 18:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The Filing editors reply to FelixRosch I'm unfortunately not understanding what you mean by "multiple sources" Felix? Maybe if I stated my wishes here it might clarify matters? = I simply wish for someone at the administrative level to: (1)revert the article Energy returned on energy invested to the state it was in on 9 November - before the Weißbach et. al table and summary were removed by Marco Raugei(or should I say our "mystery" IP user IP who just "coincidentally" edited from the very same country & "university" that he "works at"). (2)Then potentially think about talking to Rfassbind about, at the very least, enforcing a self ban, to not revert the page, and (3)Keep the article under watch for any future IP editors(like Marco Raugei who as I detail above has a vested interest) blanking the peer reviewed & scientific consensus reflecting Weißbach et. al section of the article? As I think I'm past my 3 reverts at this stage and don't want the charge of "edit warring" being leveled at me. Much obliged!
Comment from uninvolved editor: @IP editor; It shall be very difficult for any volunteer here to take up this matter if there is an unresolved issue of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY which needs to be resolved first. It is in your interest to resolve such matters first by reading the instructions in the link just provided on socks and to file the appropriate reports first on the separate investigation page and before seeking dispute resolution here. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved editor: I agree that if there is a case of sockpuppetry, it should be resolved. Let them who have the ability just do it. But that does not mean that the other issue could not be resolved first. Because we, as human beings, do not own the divine truth of things, we need science and lesser instruments such as Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs reliable sources, preferably scientific, when ever they are available. I think that this case crystallizes into a short question: What is real and good science? How this knowledge of science will be used in this particular case? Let them, who have the power resolve the sockpuppetry, that is fine. But let us not forget that the hot question is about using a scientific document as a reference on Wikipedia article. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear IP: and User:Rfassbind, your summaries are already overly long so please do not add anything further. Also DRN is not a place for commentary, accusations and allegations about each others behavior. We are here to discuss article content only. So please no more comments or references about each other. User:FelixRosch and User:Nikolas Ojala your input is most welcome but only after a DRN volunteer has formally opened the case. If one of you would like to formerly open this case and moderate the discussion between the two parties then please free to do so by announcing yourself as the moderator. If you do not wish to moderate this case then please refrain from further, unmoderated, discussion until another DRN volunteer opens the case. Thanks for your help and understanding. Best, -- KeithbobTalk 02:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Temporary DRN coordinator while T-Man is away.

The Filing editors reply to Keithbob: I do not intend to add anything further as I've already had to exhaustively debunk every one of the opposing editors arguments. I would now like to move on to having the edit reinserted into the article EROI before those with gargantuan conflicts of interest started vandalizing it. Moreover, I will not even entertain any more arguments from the opposition as I regard that to be a waste of time for all involved at this stage. Especially considering that, having given the utmost respect to the opposing registered editor - and therefore spending considerable amounts of my time to exhaustively reply/educate them on the unsuitability of each one of their arguments - I now get the insulting label that my efforts were a "wall of text". Despite my obvious intentional close following of the paragraph headings and order started by the opposing editor. Perhaps for those of you with short attention spans, it might be clearer to read both my own and the opposing editors contributions here in a stepwise fashion rather than in essay format? Such as placing their argument from "authority" first, with my responding paragraph titled argument from consensus and peer review directly after it, etc. I really couldn't care less if you wish to re-order the dispute in that fashion, if you so wish.
Secondly User:Keithbob, I take issue with the recent edit of yours here in this dispute board, specifically, that my exhaustive replies to each of the opposing editor's arguments, warranted the marginalizing treatment you have given them. As, unless I'm mistaken, on 19 November 2014 you wrote to both of us to - "consider...leaving out the references to other editor's actions or behavior which are inappropriate for DRN" - I would gladly have done so if the opposing editor had taken the initiative and removed their argument claiming "ad hominem", which lets not forget now, is the very 1st opening argument here. If the opposing editor had taken your advice and removed this, then I would gladly have reciprocated the gesture. However they did not, and it now appears that only I am being targeted for this supposed infraction, which seems unfair, really what ever happened to the idea that - 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander'?
To also reply to User:FelixRosch, I am not all that bothered with pursuing the conflict of interest issue, but for curiosities sake, is WP:SOCK the correct wiki-avenue to pursue when editors with glaring conflicts of interest vandalize page content concerning them?
Finally, I think all editors here are in agreement that what this dispute is about, as Nikolas Ojala expertly reminded you all, is - "the hot question about using a scientific document as a reference on Wikipedia article." (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved editor; @IP editor, it would assist if you could focus your comment to your proposed edit alone by identifying it clearly and directly without any digressions. Just quote the edit which you are trying to post in the article directly, in order for some volunteer to evaluate it and see if they can moderate this dispute. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Filing editor's reply to FelixRosch The article should be reverted back to the state it was in, after | my last edit on 08:05, 9 November 2014‎ by I was unsuccessful at linking directly to that specific edit above, so the above is a link to the article, from where you can click "view history."

Talk:Electronic cigarette#Removal_of_bullet_points_in_a_list_and_renaming_the_section[edit]

Pictogram voting keep-green.svg Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by AlbinoFerret on 20:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb[edit]

Pictogram voting delete.svg – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

2015 Formula One season[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Eightball on 10:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The F1 2015 schedule includes flag icons next to each race indicating where the track is located. The German Grand Prix is guaranteed to be hosted in one of two tracks, both of which are in Germany, and I have provided sources proving as such. Furthermore, the German GP has never been hosted off German soil, and assuming that it could be is a massive leap of logic. Editors, who I firmly believe are maliciously editing the page, continually refuse to accept both the objective fact that the German GP will be in Germany, AND the sources I have provided supporting said facts.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No resolution appears to be possible. My "opinion" as stated above is objectively true and cannot be disagreed with. However, editors continually try to form "consensus" to lie on the page.

How do you think we can help?

Please tell these editors that they need to respect the objective reality in which we live and stop trying to write articles about a world that doesn't exist. Please also note that THIS IS NOT A DISPUTE. Dispute over this fact is quite literally impossible. That's what a "fact" is. Why these editors keep trying to maintain the page in a state that spreads a known and obvious lie is beyond me. However, a third party NEEDS to tell them to stop, so that's why I am here.

Summary of dispute by Bretonbanquet[edit]

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

Making one comment here, as this is beyond ridiculous. The German GP has always been held in Germany (75 times out of 75), and there is no suggestion anywhere that it will be held anywhere else. There is also no suggestion that it won't be held at all. All that is not confirmed is which track will hold the race. If venues have flags in this table (and they do), it does not require the confirmation of which German track will hold the race to enable us to stick a German flag in the table. This is absolutely typical of the project, to have endless argument over the most trivial of edits. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys[edit]

The issue here is not whether a German venue will host the German race, but rather that WP:F1 has an established practice of "no venue, no flag". The flagicons are used to mark the nationality of the venue, not the race (as in certain select instances—such as Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and European Grand Prix—the titles do not contain a nationality). If there is no venue, how can we say what nationality it will be? The argument that this is about whether or not a German venue will host the race is just muddying the water.

Eightball is true to his word when he says he has provided sources. However, there are problems with those sources: they claim Hockenheim and the Nurburgring will share the event on alternate years until 2018, with Hockenheim taking it in even-numbered years, and the Nurburgring hosting it in odd-numbered years. By rights, this should be a slam-dunk—the Nurburgring should host it in 2015. But the FIA (the sport's governing body) released a calendar with the venue for the race listed as "TBA". Evidently, something has changed. Right now, there is no venue, and we have no way of knowing what the FIA is planning on doing about it. We don't even know if there will be a German Grand Prix, because without a venue, there can be no race. Furthermore, his claim that the race will absolutely be hosted by one of two venues has never been supported by any evidence.

All of that is a distraction, though. Like I said, this comes down to a refusal by an editor to accept the "no venue, no flag" policy. Moreover, that editor has expressed an intention to ignore any consensus he disagrees with, and has repeatedly failed to assume good faith on the part of half a dozen editors in four different places by accusing them of willingly lying and of making "malicious edits": here, the article talk page, the 3RR noticeboard, and my talk page (and possibly more; I don't know). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by The359[edit]

First, I would ask Eightball if he believes this cannot be discussed because his viewpoint is truth and there is no possible debate, why he has brought it to Dispute resolution? Further, if he believes that editors are being malicious in their edits and are vandalizing the article, why this isn't being taken up on WP:AN?

Now, my summary of the dispute is this: WP:F1 has a plethora of nitpicky policies regarding titles, flags, proper usage and timing on including new elements to articles, as well as what resources are worthy for addition, some of which goes outside standard Wikipedia MOS. This unfortunately has created this mess over a simple thing. A new editor added the flag under the understandable belief that the race will inherently be held in Germany even if we do not know where. A WP:F1 editor removed it under the claim that we can't say with certainly that the race will be held in Germany, due to the someone odd nature of Grand Prix titles over the decades in which some races have been held outside of their titled country, such as the San Marino Grand Prix held in Italy for its entire 26 year existence. A discussion was started with another editor believing the flag should remain, and things fell apart from there. Basically the divide comes down to those who believe that although there is the slimmest of chances the race wont be held in Germany, it is so unlikely that it is not worth recognizing that slim chance and simply saying the race will be held in Germany. The other side believes that given the odd nature of Grand Prix titles in the past, and although they too agree there is the slimmest of chances the race wont be held in Germany, we cannot verify through referencing where exactly the race will take place and thus the country should not be represented because of the snowball's chance in hell that it could be somewhere outside of Germany.

Unfortunately edit warring broke out as Eightball believed there was no way his opinion could be wrong on the matter and that a lack of flag in the article was somehow a "lie", and other editors believed there was prior consensus for not including the flag.

I would also note there is prior history of disputes between Eightball and other editors of WP:F1 over minutae, much in the same vein as this dispute. The359 (Talk) 05:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tvx1[edit]

Much exaggerated dispute to be honest. We have had a practice for years that we don't put a flag when a venue is TBA, mainly because MOS:FLAGS advizes us not to use a flag for the nationality of a venue called "TBA". This is a general rule we have always applied and is not by any means Germany specific. The claim that it's guaranteed that one of two venues will host the race in 2015 is completely incoorect. Only one venue is contracted for 2015 and the other one is not required by contract to step in if the other one can't host. It has always been our practice to take the safe option when the situation is unclear and to wait until more information comes available. I don't see why we should start doing otherwise. Where the race is actually going to take place has never been te concern of our argument in the first place. Lastly, if this is no dispute, I wonder why a dispute resolution request has been lodged in the first place? Tvx1 (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Falcadore[edit]

User:Eightball added a German flagicon to the calendar table in the article. No other changes, just a flagicon. Another editor removed it. User:Eightball then proceeded to edit-war to keep his edit in place despite opposition from a number of editors, insisting it was his right to edit war because opposing editors were lieing or being vandals by disagreeing. No compromise was even attempted.

I tried to start a compromise by asking Eightball the question; in the table why does German Grand Prix with a flagicon says the race will be held in Germany where German Grand Prix without a flagicon does not. By his own statement the German Grand Prix has never been held in another country. The intent being to show demonstrate how unreasonable his position is. Surely German Grand Prix is sufficient indicator, without having to resort to edit-warring and anti-consensus behavior. User:Eightball has repeatedly dodged my question for him.

I am at a loss to explain User:Eightball's claim how the absense of a flagicon constitutes lieing and vandalism. --Falcadore (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Pch172[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Scjessey[edit]

For goodness sake. I stumbled across the discussion in question quite by accident, saw there was a ludicrously long argument about a trivial detail (which is now ludicrously long cubed), so posted a comment which included an impeccable reliable source in the hope the dispute would be resolved. That has been my single contribution to the discussion. The only point I would like to add is that Wikipedia usually favors secondary reliable sources (such as the Daily Telegraph I referred to) over primary sources like the FIA. Beyond that contribution, I have nothing further to offer this DR and couldn't really care less how this trivial NothingBurger gets resolved. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Twirlypen[edit]

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

The whole argument that this editor's stance cannot be disputed with is very unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational. While the original contract signed several years ago states that the German Grand Prix will alternate between Hockenheimring and Nurburgring, it never divulged stipulations should one venue be unable to fulfill their year of hosting, nor did it say that with certainty that regardless of funding, that the German GP MUST be held at either venue or even in Germany - the past does not equate to the future. Clearly either the FIA, the folks in charge of the Nurburgring, or both know something is amiss for the FIA to not even include the venue on a provisional calendar, which isn't even finalized until December. During discussion, I listed 30 instances in the past 40 years that a country's Grand Prix was not hosted in that country. As such, I don't think it's reasonable to presume that it must be held in Germany, or even that the event (the German Grand Prix) must occur regardless if a venue cannot be secured. The FIA is also fully able to simply cancel the event altogether. Therefore, I would put my 2 cents to say that while the German Grand Prix is still scheduled to be held, its venue and location is still TBD. Twirlypen (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Burgring[edit]

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

I didn't know there was a dispute over this, as such. I saw what I thought was petty, ill-founded and unnecessarily stubborn opposition to the presence of a German flag on the row in a table detailing the 2015 German Grand Prix. As country flags were present for all other 19 country rows in that table, and it is as certain that the 2015 German Grand Prix will be hosted at a circuit in Germany as it is that the 2015 British Grand Prix will be hosted at a circuit in Britain, the arguments that the German flag should be omitted until the specific German circuit is confirmed seemed ludicrous to me. So my sole involvement in this was to add my reasoned opinion to the debate for why I thought the German flag should stay. Burgring (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

2015 Formula One season discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@Eightball: you need to notify the involved parties of this dispute, using {{subst:drn-notice}}. Unless this is done, I will close this in about 48 hours or so. I would also like to remind you tone it down; If you do not, you risk this being closed and escalated to ANI. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 15:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I have pinged the users who have not yet posted dispute summaries on the talk page in question, with a link to this DRN above it. GyaroMaguus 21:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

A mostly uninvolved editor's comment: To the volunteer, I am a member of the F1 WikiProject but I have chosen to avoid discussion here because I am caught on both sides. While I believe logic dictates that the flag should remain there, the only good reasons are that Germany has the facilities to host a GP and it is the German GP and that an F1 race has never been taken outside its country when it possible to keep it inside. I believe typical Wikipedia political correctness would in fact dictate that the flag should not remain there, because there is always a chance that it could be held outside of Germany (even though, as I said, that situation has never happened, but there is a first time for everything) and that putting the flag next to the "TBA" may be in violation of WP:CBALL. I will continue to not contribute to the discussion any further unless specifically asked to. GyaroMaguus 22:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Another note to the volunteer taking on the issue: According to the 2015 Sporting Regulations, Chapters 8 and 9, there is no requirement that the race must be held in the country in of the Grand Prix. In fact, the race can be held anywhere as long as the ASN (the national motorsport federation involved) agrees to it being held in that specific location. Germany, however, does have the facilities required to host the race. GyaroMaguus 08:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I think I'm going to open this with a policy guideline related comment. Per MOS:FLAG, the actions appear to be against policy. Unless there is another reason why the flag should remain (and I'm on about a very good WP:IAR reason here), I can see no means for it's inclusion at this time. Of course, when the official location is announced, then the flag can be added. There is no rush - at the end of the day, it is only a small 16x16 icon.... --Mdann52talk to me! 11:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more that there is no rush. Although I would like to point out that MOS:FLAG is not a policy. Tvx1 (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Facepalm3.svg Facepalm --Mdann52talk to me! 13:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
...And that the German flag is (likely) a 24x16 icon... GyaroMaguus 17:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mdann52 You appear to have (kindly) opened this case for moderation. Therefor I've changed the case's status to 'discussion in progress'. If I've misunderstood your comment above please clarify and/or revert my edit. Thanks.-- KeithbobTalk 22:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Mdann52, you say "Per MOS:FLAG, the actions appear to be against policy" – can you clarify which action is against that policy? Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Part of WP:MOSFLAG states "If the use of flags... [is] controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen"., As in this case it has been contested, the best line appears to be to wait for this whole issue to be resolved, which seems to be when the FIA officially announce where the race is going to be held. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It's just that if we're going by MOSFLAG, there shouldn't be any flags in that table, as racing circuits do not represent their countries in any sense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but this is a wider issue, and probably not one to delve into too deeply here; There is a general convention among F1 articles to include the flagicons, so changing that will probably need an RfC to get wider input. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've only just stumbled across this dispute here, so have no prior involvement. It seems that there is a consensus among editors that there should be no flag until it is confirmed by the FIA which country the race will be held in, even if that country is almost certainly going to be Germany. This consensus is consistent with the project norms and MOS:FLAG. One user dislikes this consensus, insisting that they are self-evidently right and others are self-evidently wrong, going so far as to accuse them of vandalism and lying, and has edit warred and escalated this dispute to try and get their own way because discussion is "impossible". When we have a choice between a consensus of editors, and one editor editwarring against that consensus, it is clear to me that the single editor is the one who needs to either voluntarily disengage from the dispute or be removed from the dispute by something like a topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Anusara School_of_Hatha_Yoga#Anusara_School_of_Hatha_Yoga_yoga[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.

Talk:Pep Guardiola[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Walter Görlitz on 05:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Editor user:RangerRichard‎ made a series of edits to the subject's article all pushing his Catalan background. He then added the region to the subject's infobox. I removed the last and only the last. That started badgering, harassment and what I would consider personal attacks, the last of which was stating that I have WP:OWNership of the article. I warned the editor for the last and he took first back to my talk page then to the subject's talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the subject's talk page, where it should not have been posted, and on RangerRichard‎'s talk page.

How do you think we can help?

It's not clear, perhaps clarifying the situation at both the subject article and explaining WP:NPA and harassment to the editor or telling me why I'm wrong on either or both issues.

The copy has been removed as a result of an ANI dispute, but I suspect that this will not be the end of the interactions. Since the other editor has not responded, I'll raise the issue here if anything more comes of it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by RangerRichard‎[edit]

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

It should be noted as an initial matter that User:Walter Görlitz has very helpfully opened up the question on WikiProject_Spain#Catalan_nationalism_on_Talk:Pep_Guardiola.3F and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Catalan_nationalism_on_Talk:Pep_Guardiola.3F. Nothing appears on the former, but there are several comments from several users on the latter. The substance of the dispute is laid on this second talk page and at Talk:Pep Guardiola

I have never been in such a dispute before, except regard to this very issue with User:Walter Görlitz, so I am a bit confused as to the purpose of this forum. It is the case the copy from the Talk:Pep Guardiola page to which User:Walter Görlitz has objected has been removed. Our discussions, back and forth, have been robust. Though I understand the nature of his former complaint (which was on the same substantive matter), I am unaware of any continuing objections he has except to the very fact of the conflict itself. I would be happy to address anything additional not discussed to date which Walter believes requires our attention.

Meantime, at the risk of turning the tables, I would like to ask Walter in this forum that he stop telling folks about my supposed "Catalan" background or my interest and support for "Catalan nationalism." I am a park ranger from Alaska, a native-born U.S. citizen of wholly non-Spanish, non-Catalan descent, going back to the time my ancestors arrived here in 1680 from England. I could not live in a place less Catalan, nor could I live a life which is less Mediterranean. From my first edit, Walter assumed (I don't know why-- really, I don't why) that I was a "Catalan nationalist" who was "pushing an unacceptable POV" (I had to look up what that meant). Really, as it turns out, I'm just an Alaskan interested in language and geography. I have told him this from the start, but he repeats this odd claim about me all the same. I find it offensive, obviously, but even more than that just strange, and wish he would stop.

As to the article, we have stumbled over when and how sub-national units should be portrayed on Pep Guardiola. I believe the subject's hometown, being unknown, calls out for treatment appropriate to any town in North America-- by adding a second-order geopolitical unit to the infobox, so folks know at a glance whereabouts it is. Here, Guardiola's hometown is Santpedor, a relatively unknown small town in (the autonomous community of) Catalonia. Obviously it were Saskatoon or Seattle, the infobox would by contrast immediately show the name of province or state. That's what I think "consistency" should mean, but obviously Walter disagrees. Though Walter sees strident and "unacceptable" nationalism here, I just see practical geography of the most ordinary (and somewhat boring) sort. RangerRichard (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pep Guardiola discussion[edit]

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

Adminstrative note: Welcome User:Walter_Görlitz to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. As the filing party it is your obligation to make certain that all parties are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and link to the DRN page. The easiest way to do tist is add: subst:drn-notice|Pep Guardiola (surrounded by double brackets {{ }} like these) to their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within three to five days this filing will likely be automatically closed. Let me know if you need help or have questions. Please leave a message here verifying that you have read this message and have notified all parties on their user talk page. Thank you!-- KeithbobTalk 18:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. You can mark it up this way as well {{subst:drn-notice|Pep Guardiola}}. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.