Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. 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, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button 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; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. 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. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution 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. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. 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. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide 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, except as noted here. 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), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Benevolent dictatorship	Closed	Banedon (t)	23 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 20 hours
Talk:Taylor Swift	Closed	Gsgdd (t)	23 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	22 days, 16 hours
Kylie Minogue	Closed	PHShanghai (t)	20 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	13 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	13 days, 23 hours
African diaspora	Closed	Kyogul (t)	17 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 days, 16 hours
Primavera Capital Group	Closed	WorldPeace888 (t)	10 days, 10 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	7 days, 8 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	7 days, 8 hours
Serbia men's national basketball team	Closed	Wikiacc321 (t)	8 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 days, 11 hours
RRR	New	SaibaK (t)	2 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours	SaibaK (t)	1 days, 9 hours
Etan Ilfeld	Closed	Cheburasha (t)	2 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 14 hours
Voice of Reason (political party)	Closed	Michalis1994 (t)	1 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 07:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Public forum_debate#What_constitutes_excessive_detail?

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Cut card on 17:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Public forum debate#What constitutes excessive detail? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cut card (talk · contribs)
• Pinkbeast (talk · contribs)
• RBGmacaroni (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Public forum is a debate format sanctioned by the National Speech and Debate Association. The debates delve deep into topics ranging from standardized testing to UN peacekeepers to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to East African humanitarian aid. The format is complex as well, with debaters required to use time management and speech strategies to engage with their opponents' arguments as well as defend their own.

The public forum page has been the subject of dispute for quite some time now. For the past several months, the discussion had largely centered around the list of resolutions (topics that each debate focuses on, generally a policy action like "The US should abolish the capital gains tax") that was on the page. The page had documented the entire list of public forum resolutions since 2006. Several users had argued for its removal (Pinkbeast) and several had argued for its inclusion (myself). The eventual consensus was that given other places it could be found, as well as the length it added to the article, the list would be removed.

Pinkbeast then took it several steps further, removing nearly all the information about public forum from the page, including the speech times, descriptions of those speeches, information about governing bodies, the mechanics of a round, information about resolutions and their selection process, leaving the page with an extremely brief description of public forum.

There has been significant discussion of these issues on the talk page. I personally do not believe Pinkbeast has sufficiently justified their position, and they have taken it upon themselves to remove all additional information editors have added.

There is an additional discussion about the role of the National Speech and Debate Association about topics - it's not directly relevant to the main discussion (hence its separate talk section) but it may be instructive in the type of discussion that's been had.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

1. Discussion on talk page 2. Additional cites added to back some statements up 3. Extensive quoting and explanation of linked cites 4. Editing of page to remove portions of the "instructional" information about public forum; this edit was quickly reverted, with Pinkbeast seeming dead-set against this compromise

How do you think we can help?

I hope to see some additional explanation from the other side - I don't think they've been all too forthcoming with an explanation, which I really thin would clear up our disagreement. I also hope that the clash between our viewpoints can be resolved, since I don't think there's been sufficient resolution thus far. Finally, I'd like to see a clarification of this page's situation, specifically abut the necessity or non-necessity of information there.

Summary of dispute by Pinkbeast

I'm not sure I can add much to what I have already written on the talk page, but first:

Should the page simply be AFDed or merged into another page? It passed AFD by a narrow margin in 2007. In my view a merge might be best, but I'd be reluctant to propose it myself without some indication other disinterested editors agree.

To me the list of round lengths is obviously instructional material. "Short (2-4 minute) speeches that are interspersed with 3 minute "crossfire" sections, questions and answers between opposed debaters" describes the format perfectly well. You only need the exact list of round lengths if you want to hold such a debate.

The list of previous topics was colossal, clearly being given undue weight, and "a proposal of a potential solution to a current events issue" gives a good idea of what sort of thing they entail. I wouldn't be opposed to including one or two if sources independent of PF debate have taken note of them, indicating that those were more significant. (This is not an unreasonable requirement; national newspapers sometimes report on The Cambridge Union's debates, and that is a single debating society, albeit a venerable and well known one, not a nationwide organisation.)

My objection to the assertion that the NSDA prepares topics is simply that it was uncited. I expect in the near future Cut Card will produce a cite (that, say, actually mentions the NSDA) and then obviously it can be inserted. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by RBGMacaroni

I began editing the Public Forum page to add detail to a bare-bones page that lacked detail compared to articles about other forms of debate like Lincoln-Douglas and Policy. My additional information has repeatedly been removed with no real explanation as to why. The only comment has been Pinkbeast's repeated complaint about excessive detail but I don't know what constitutes that and any outside observer can clearly see the complete lack of information on the PF wikipedia page as compared to other forms of debate.

In my view, listing the particular speeches of a Public Forum round is not excessive or instructional. Simply listing the speeches does not tell any debater how to speak or what to say. Additionally, speech order and structure is part of what defines Public Forum because it differentiates it from other debate forms.

The listing of topics can be done more briefly, but eliminating any examples at all hinders understanding of what exactly a typical PF resolution constitutes.

My general complaint is that any new information about Public Forum is rapidly taken down with little explanation as to why.

Talk:Public forum_debate#What_constitutes_excessive_detail? discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page. The other editors have been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - @DRN volunteers: - A volunteer is needed to moderate the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Hello, I am volunteering to moderate this discussion. Having read the article and the relevant section of the talk page, I would just like to clarify that the dispute is over whether the currently deleted Debate Structure section has value to a reader of the article other than as instructional content. RobbieM13 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - User:Cut card, User:Pinkbeast,User:RBGmacaroni - The moderator last posted five days ago, and is waiting for comments. Please comment within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Sorry, I didn't realize that the moderator's comment was a question. I thought they'd ask us questions or something, I'm new to the dispute resolution process. I've looked at the edit mentioned, and I do agree that its content seems to be more expressly instructional than necessary. However, the main dispute was not over that edit, nor the list of resolutions, to be clear, but about past edits, specifically ones concerning the mechanics of public forum (see an edit made by myself) and a smaller list of example resolutions and their importance. Cut card (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I think we should focus on a specific section of the argument at a time, rather than making blanket statements about the deleted content as a whole. Firstly, the "Format" section. It appears to have a lot of overlap with the second statement in the introduction; the one discussing the basic structure, which could perhaps indicate it is superfluous. On the other hand, as Public Forum debate seems to be (at least to my limited knowledge) a very standardised/standardized (is British English allowed?) format, perhaps a specific description of the way it works is valid. If the editors (User:Cut card, User:Pinkbeast,User:RBGmacaroni) could comment on this, we might be able to move towards a compromise on this aspect at least. RobbieM13 (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The format section shouldn't have that overlap. I don't really think the introduction needs the information that talks about the speeches, just an overview of the goals of public forum or something. (It also needs some cleaning up formatting-wise.) Every public forum debate has the same structure, and it really makes public forum what it is. The symmetry sets it apart from Lincoln-Douglas, and the short lengths separate it from policy. Its conventions, like slower speaking and simpler argumentation is also essential to defining the format. Much of that information was omitted in the last edit I made, in an attempt to compromise on what User:Pinkbeast saw as "instructional," but if possible I think it'd help describe public forum much better than is currently done. Cut card (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer note The sources, including those sources deleted in the sections being discussed, seem to back up a lot of what you're saying, and I do agree that information on what makes Public Forum what it is is necessary for the page to be useful. If you limit the information you include strictly to facts and conclusions made in the references, then, to my view, additional content would be valid. Pinkbeast's complaints seem to be (and as he does not seem to have contributed to the discussion since his initial summary, we must rely on this for now) about citation, so perhaps you could includce a citation documenting the name change of NFL to NSDA to show that all the sources are talking about the same organisation. We will make no progress in resolving the dispute until User:Pinkbeast will contribute to the discussion, however I would suggest that, as long as you stick strictly to the information contained in the citations, the detail is not excessive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieM13 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:National Security Agency

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by AceTankCommander on 23:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:National Security Agency (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AceTankCommander (talk · contribs)
• Thewolfchild (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I attempted to remove content providing undue attention to Jimmy Wales. User: Thewolfchild reverted this edit, and I believe he/she/other is misinterpreting policy. They have also questioned my skill level and motivations for making the change.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion with other user, filing this.

How do you think we can help?

Providing an outside opinion for the removal of content.

Summary of dispute by Thewolfchild

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

Talk:NSA discussion

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

•  Volunteer note: Some talk page discussion has been had on the talk page, although it does not appear that much detail has been hammered out that would necessitate DRN involvement. Given that the page has some 711 watchers, it seems likely that this discussion could take place on the talk page while discussion is still developing. Additionally, the other editor mentioned in the filing has not been notified. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - Since the discussion was at Talk:National Security Agency and not at the acronym, I am changing the name of this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Space elevator#Graphs of optimal profiles

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Eric Kvaalen on 06:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Space elevator#Graphs of optimal profiles (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Eric Kvaalen (talk · contribs) Tarl_N. (talk · contribs) 40.117.60.104 (talk) Dispute overview I made a couple graphs using Excel of the equations for the optimal cross-section profile which were already given in the article, with a reference. An anonymous editor deleted them, saying it was original research and complained that I used certain values of the "free breaking length" or FBL (which were also already mentioned in the article). I wrote on the talk page defending my choices of FBL, and saying that I was restoring my edit. Then an editor named Tarl reverted that, and has been claiming that my graphs are original research and blaming me for what the article says about the FBL. He seems to have animus against me because of discussions we were both involved in last year. I still claim that making graphs of simple equations is not original research, and that my graphs should be included in the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Besides the talk page, none. How do you think we can help? Say whether it's allowed to make graphs and put them in a Wikipedia article. Summary of dispute by Tarl_N. The edits were uncited. They were reverted, and Eric Kvaalen re-instated them, violating WP:BRD. I restored status quo ante, referencing WP:BRD. At this point, there is no consensus to reinstate the edits (two editors opposed, the original author in favor). The editor was unable to explain the basis for his edits, indicating that he was using information he found in an unreferenced section, and appears to not bring any further understanding of the matter. This editor and I have a previous history: Alpha Centauri on his talk page Alpha Centauri talk page Superconductivity on his talk page Given our history, I felt keeping my discussion to a minimum was the best action. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Incidentally, there is a third editor involved in the discussion, at IP 40.117.60.104 . The editor is evidently quite experienced, but has used this address only recently. I'll leave a message on that IP's talk page, to see if they will participate. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 40.117.60.104 (talk) I support continued/permanent removal of the material plus sanctions to Kvaanen for continued refusal to get the point (WP:ICANTHEARYOU). There are two overall matters: 1) The material he wants to instate is almost all uncited, misleading, and wrong. Almost 100% made-up by him. 2) He's refusing to get the point, imploring numerous disruptive, keep-dragging-it-along misdirections to "keep it going" including this complaint on this page. His "arguments" are all straw-man and cherry picking and miss the point again and again. For example, on this very page he misleads on the core of the matter saying that he wants us to: "Say whether it's allowed to make graphs and put them in a Wikipedia article." But, that's not the point at all... -- The graph's themselves are so misleading and indiscernible as to be crazy wrong. -- The graphs combined with his other material way overstate the importance of free breaking length (FBL). WP:undue? -- His graphs and his other material assert directly and imply that min FBL for a space elevator is related one-to-one to planet radius, which is incorrect. That wrong idea was removed from the page some years ago, Yet, Kvaalen continues to insist otherwise -- even on this page(!). Kvaalen made some fabulously-done, very pretty graphs. Trouble is, the data and the way they're presented are so misleading so as to be outright wrong. We've complained about them misleading people into thinking a planet's radius is the sole factor in determining the necessary specific strength of a material. And, we've complained about overstating the role of the "free breaking length" factor. But worse, I was looking closer at the graphs and, while pretty, The x axis is given in units of "altitude per free breaking length" (km)/(km of free breaking length of the material). In doing that, he removed the last remaining discernibility as to what exactly is being shown in the graphs. I get it. I really do. I imagine Kvaalen saw the equations and thought he would whip up some nice plots for them -- and then he "got into it". Good for him. I do that kind of thing myself. I know the feeling. I applaud him for it. He even "normalized" the data like no one has ever done. In his scientific background, people "normalize" all time. But, nobody ever normalizes space elevator data that way. He took it upon himself to interpret, which is WP:OR. So there's that particular WP:OR on top of all the other WP:OR. To defend his honor, he's been refusing to listen and quibbling like a teenager. He just won't go away. Tarl N. has learned to not wrestle a pig because ya get dirty and the pig likes it. I guess I haven't learned that completely yet. On the talk page it looked like it had settled down. But no. Kvaalen is right back at it here on this page, misstating the matter, refusing to "get it", and wasting everyone's time having to explain yet again. 40.117.60.104 (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: I can see you're frustrated. I'm not going to comment on personalities. I do want to suggest some reading, including WP:BIGDEAL and WP:PERSONAL. There are many other such essays and guidelines. As a rule, it is always best to focus on content and not on behavior, and remember that you can always choose to WP:DISENGAGE. I'd like to see all participants focus on the narrow topic at hand, avoid personal attacks, and work toward compromise. Coastside (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Talk:Space elevator#Graphs of optimal profiles discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: I will wait for all the participants to provide a summary of the dispute (above) before commenting. Coastside (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: First, I want to point out that there is a Wikipedia No Original Research Notice Board, which might be a suitable venue to solicit input on this question. However, please don't take the topic there while the issue is open here on the DRN. I will try to facilitate a resolution as a third party volunteer. Second, sorry this is a long note. To paraphrase Twain, I didn't have time to make it shorter. It's tricky issue, and I want to be helpful. It's clear from reviewing the talk page discussion that the participants are aware of the no-original-research policy guidelines. I saw, for example, reference to WP:CALC regarding use of routine calculations. I'd like to draw attention to a more detailed policy discussion of derivations and restatements of scientific and mathematical content which is also applicable and may be helpful. As explained there, illustrative examples and restatements are often necessary. In fact, they are encouraged "provided that a reader who reads and understands the references can easily see how the material in the Wikipedia article can be inferred". Examples include the article on Methane clathrate which includes an original illustration created and uploaded by a Wikipedia user and a footnote with a detailed calculation showing the derivation of a statement in the lead. It's also important to remember that users are encouraged to upload original illustrations because copyright laws generally limit the number of images available in Wikipedia. Regarding the graphs in the article on the space elevator, my 3rd-party opinion is that attempting to add illustrative material, including original images and graphs, to the Physics section of the article is rather laudable. This article is interesting even to the non-scientist, and the science is interesting even to the non-mathematician. Illustrations may help make a section that is full of mathematical formulae somewhat accessible to the less scientific reader who is nonetheless interested in the topic. Having said that, the question of whether original graphs and images contain "original research" is something that needs careful consideration. Ultimately, this must be determined by consensus of the editors. It's clear here that consensus has not yet been reached. Nevertheless, I encourage the participants to work toward a consensus about how to create original graphs or illustrations that improve the article without violating principles of WP:NOR. What I see in the talk page discussion is all too common with such issues. The participants are focused too much on whether an edit has been reverted and whether editors' motivations are valid, behavior appropriate, etc. When this happens, the participants miss out on an opportunity to collaborate and work together to make the article better. In this case, I see several smart people, including an enthusiastic editor who wants to make the article more accessible to the reader. There is no reason not to work together and build a consensus about improving the Physics section of this article with graphical illustrations. The key is not to focus on particular edits and revisions, but rather on the ultimate goal of improving the article, and to recognize the power of collaboration and consensus-building. If you can achieve that, everyone wins. Coastside (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: Questions for all participants to facilitate collaboration and compromise: 1) Do the participants agree that it's important to have consensus among editors regarding whether original illustrations contain original research? 2) Do the participants agree that illustrations might be helpful to improve the article, specifically the section on Physics? 3) If the participants agree on the above two points, can they agree to work to collaborate to define and create meaningful illustrations to help readers better understand the article content? If there is agreement on the points above, I will be willing to help facilitate the process as best I can. Coastside (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Regrettably, while I agree on the need for consensus and the desirability of illustrations, I don't agree on these illustrations being desirable. I simply don't trust Eric to understand the text he's editing, I've repeatedly found him in other articles making factual errors due to misunderstanding what he read. I have since found that attempting discussion results in WP:WALLOFTEXT (see the Alpha Centauri talk page). My stance right now is that I can't accept anything from him unless I see a reliable source which actually says what his text does. This dispute is probably not amendable to resolution - but I am willing to accept a third party telling that I'm being unreasonable. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: Since you are asking for third party feedback, I will say that you are entitled to your opinion, of course. However, you don't need to "accept" or reject what any particular editor contributes. Editors on Wikipedia aren't gatekeepers of other editors contributions. There are lots of guidelines and essays on this, and I'm sure you can avail yourselves of those. Bottom line is that Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia. In any case, given that the participants don't all want mediation, I'm going to close this thread. 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.

Bumper Stumpers

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Digifan23 on 17:19, 3 February 2019 (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. Location of dispute Bumper Stumpers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Digifan23 (talk · contribs) AldezD (talk · contribs) E2e3v6 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Bumper Stumpers is coming back to GameTV as confirmed here on Feb 4: https://www.igametv.com/shows/1278/ but AldezD thinks it's unsourced info Have you tried to resolve this previously? i tried to provide the source and told AldezD told him to do the research first (i wasn't being rude or anything and if i was i'm sorry How do you think we can help? Talk to the AldezD Summary of dispute by AldezD Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by E2e3v6. Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Bumper Stumpers discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: It appears this dispute was initiated within minutes of the first entry on the article's talk page. In addition, the other editors have not yet been notified by the filer. I would like to volunteer to moderate this dispute however I will hold-off pending further talk discussion and editor notification. airuditious (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC) This edit is unsourced, and the link in this edit posted February 3 did not originally include scheduling details for February 4. It's a dynamic target link with data that will change based upon the day it is accessed. WP:BURDEN of proof is for editors to include sources when adding info. Stop making unsourced edits and they'll stop being reverted for being unsourced. Telling another editor "to do the research first" is not compliant with WP:V and WP:BURDEN. The summary left in this edit, "there is your source next time do the stupid research before you rollback edits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is childish. Also, "i wasn't being rude or anything and if i was i'm sorry" is ridiculous. Based upon edit history, summaries are filled with harassing and aggressive comments (examples 1, 2, 3). Is this editor WP:COMPETENT? AldezD (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: There is some ongoing discussion on article's talk page so will wait to see if this can be resolved there. Reminder that some of the other editors mentioned in this case have not yet been notified. airuditious (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: The filer has indicated, on their talk page, that they are on indefinite hiatus. I will give this another 24 hours to see if they return and resume the DR process. If the hiatus is still in effect at that time, then I will close the case for lack of participation. airuditious (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)  Volunteer note: After more than 36 hours, the filer's talk page continues to indicate the editor's hiatus status which I interpret as their not engaging in Wikipedia activities for the time being. In addition, the discussion that has taken place at the article's talk page did provide a reasonable explanation as to why the edit in controversy may not be allowed. For both of these reasons, I am closing this incident. airuditious (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2019 (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.

2019 World Rally Championship

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 1.144.105.219 on 07:15, 6 February 2019 (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. Location of dispute 2019 World Rally Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs) Klõps (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is over the entry table and whether it should be condensed into a single table or be have a split format. Have you tried to resolve this previously? This has been discussed on the article talk page and at the WikiProject. How do you think we can help? By offering additional opinions on the subject. Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys I must apologise for going over 2000 characters. There are a few issues at hand here and some require explanation. I believe that the entry list should be condensed down to a single table for the following reasons: The purpose of the entry list is for entries. Eligibility to score manufacturer points is only a secondary concern. There is another table in the article that details which manufacturers scored points and where. To split the entry list is a case of over-design. The entry list does not provide details of every single entrant in the World Rally Championship—just the entrants in World Rally Cars (you will note that Yoann Bonato is listed in the drivers' championship table but not in the entry list; this is because he was entered in another championship first). This decision was made because entry lists for individual events can have up to 90 entries, most of which will only contest one round in non-World Rally Car entires. In the interests of brevity and relevance, the decision was taken to limit the entry list to WRC entries. Splitting the table effectively creates three lists: manufacturers, non-manufacturers and entries that do not merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. All WRC cars are classified as "Priority 1" (P1) cars regardless as to whether or not they score manufacturer points. Manufacturer entries do not receive any special privileges that non-manufacturer cars do not. All of the sources used in the article—such as this one—clearly indicate that these cars are treated equally by the sport's governing body. Indeed, all P1 cars that are capable of completing a stage must complete the stage in order for the result to be valid. Non-manufacturer entries may not score manufacturer results, but they can affect manufacturer results. This is precisely what happened at the 2018 Wales Rally GB where the final stage was interrupted and had to be run only for P1 cars. 2019 saw the creation of a multi-class championship in the 2019 World Rally Championship-2. Because of this, the article uses a split table format as teams and crews are competing for different championships under the same regulations. The WRC-2 competes at the same events as the WRC, but with less-powerful cars. They are treated as "Priority 2" (P2), which is run in the same way as P1 (if P1 cars can complete the stage, but P2 cars cannot, the P1 results will stand and the P2 results will not). This has created a situation where 2019 World Rally Championship uses a split table despite the regulations whereas 2019 World Rally Championship-2 uses a split table because of the regulations. Based on this, I think it is reasonable to suggest it is a contradiction and readers could come to the conclusion that non-manufacturer WRC entries are competing for separate titles (which they are not). The split table format over-emphasises the importance of the manufacturers' championship. The scope of the article extends well beyond the manufacturers' championship. If a split table format is to be used, there should be one table for manufacturer entries and one for drivers' and co-drivers' entries. This effectively means repeating the same table and adding none-manufacturer entries onto one. Related articles do not use a split table. The entry list in the 2019 Rally Sweden article does not distinguish between manufacturer entries and non-manufacturer entries (Bertelli, Tuohino and Gronholm). The split table format is a hangover from over a decade ago when the sport had a series of very complicated rules about who could enter as a manufacturer. Those rules no longer exist. Splitting the table is inconsistent with the wider scope of WP:MOTOR. No other motorsport championship articles split their entry lists. The only comparable scenario is in MotoGP, which used to have a system called "Claiming Rule Teams" that split teams up based on their manufacturer status, but those championship articles did not split their entry lists. Despite my objections to denoting manufacturer eligibility in the entry list at all, I have proposed a solution that allows for one entry list but gives the reader the freedom to sort the table based on that eligibility. Klops has point-blank rejected any compromise solution. Klops has also made several arguments that I would like to address here: He claims to have a consensus in favour of the split table. What he has is two people in favour, one opposed and one who does not care either way. I have repeatedly asked him to provide reliable sources to address my concern that WRC crews are treated differently depending on their manufacturer status. He has so far failed to provide any sources. While I appreciate the importance of consensus, I believe that this is barely a consensus to begin with and is invalid because it contradicts the reliable sources that clearly demonstrate that all P1 cars are treated equally. He claims that the split table does not imply a difference, but the only evidence that he can provide is his claim that he does not think it does. He has repeatedly claimed that the split table is justified because manufacturer drivers get more coverage from the media. This statement is misleading: first, manufacturer drivers get the most coverage because they are the most competitive, but non-manufacturer drivers in 2017-generation cars can compete with manufacturers; they just haven't had any success yet. More importantly, the rules introduced in 2017 created the most powerful cars since the Group B era. Group B was banned after several driver fatalities, so the sport's governing body introduced rules restricting access to the most powerful cars to manufacturer teams. Those rules have gradually been relaxed as drivers prove themselves capable of handling the cars. To suggest the media only covers manufacturers is misleading because until recently only manufacturers were allowed to enter the cars. He has also claimed that the 2019 article needs to be consistent with the style of previous articles because "the tables have been used for years". This, however, is a catch-22. If all articles must be the same, then articles cannot be tailored to meet their individual needs and changes to the sport may mean that individual articles require a different format … which they then cannot have because it would contradict the format of the other articles. An article should be written to take into account its individual needs first. Consistency with other, related articles is nice where possible, but it should not be the primary consideration of the article. As an example of this, the 2012 and 2013 championship articles are very different to one another. A major overhaul of the regulations was introduced in 2013, and this was reflected in the structure of the articles (2013 also saw the creation of the WRC-2 and WRC-3 series, which got their own articles instead of being lumped in with 2013 World Rally Championship). These articles have not completely broken down—and indeed have remained stable for years—despite having different styles. If a single table format is applied to the 2019 article, then it could be applied to the 2017 and 2018 articles, or those articles could be left as is subject to discussion. However, Klops refuses to discuss this and instead insists that all three must remain the same and so changing the 2019 article is out of the question in case it contradicts other articles even if it is in the interests of the 2019 article to change it. In short, this is a common sense approach to the article. Whatever opposition has been presented has been based on user perceptions of the changes and has not been supported by any sources. All attempts at finding a compromise have been met with absolute refusal to discuss the issue. Furthermore, Klops has taken to claiming that his edits are justified by a consensus despite having a tenuous position at best and no reliable sources to support his position. He has taken to sitting on the article for nearly 24 hours a day and reverting changes on sight to try and bludgeon his preferred version through. DRN is the only avenue open to me to resolve this. 1.144.105.219 (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Klõps Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 2019 World Rally Championship discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Softlavender#Parentheticals

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by TonyPS214 on 15:55, 6 February 2019 (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. Location of dispute User talk:Softlavender#Parentheticals (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved TonyPS214 (talk · contribs) Softlavender (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User Softlavender has continually reverted edits of mine. When I requested him to desist, User Gareth Griffith-Jones added a contribution in the following terms: (talk page stalker) @ TonyPS214. You are writing almost unbelievable horse shit here. Your opinions are crass; if you question such an esteemed contributor as User:Softlavender on grammar and punctuation in such a rude way, it is you that will be reported for disruptive editing. Back off now before it is too late! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Because of Gareth Griffith-Jones' offensive language, I have made no attempt to contact him. How do you think we can help? If possible, user Gareth Griffith-Jones should be contacted by Wikipedia and admonished for his use of profanity. My hope is that his account could be suspended for a time; I will not ask that he be permanently barred from Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by Softlavender Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Softlavender#Parentheticals 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.