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
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	28 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 20 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	New	Randomstaplers (t)	24 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Bon courage (t)	1 days, 11 hours
Genocide	Closed	Bogazicili (t)	12 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,
Double-slit experiment	New	Johnjbarton (t)	7 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 1 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	New	Wolfdog (t)	6 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 1 hours	EncreViolette (t)	3 days, 3 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	4 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 2 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 06:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Ilia Topuria

– New discussion.

Filed by Nswix on 14:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ilia Topuria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nswix (talk · contribs)
• Cassiopeia (talk · contribs)
• DrakeXper (talk · contribs)
• Lemabeta (talk · contribs)
• Caucasian Man (talk · contribs)
• BasilE99 (talk · contribs)
• FCBWanderer (talk · contribs)
• WikiJuan (talk · contribs)
• Gsfelipe94 (talk · contribs)
• SpyroeBM (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Concerning the subjects nationality, he was born in Germany (which according to this doesn't entitle you to German nationality, we've all moved on from this a year ago). But where it gets tricky is he was raised in Georgia and claims to be a dual-citizen of Spain. But Spain doesnt allow dual citizenship for Georgian citizens. He fights out of Spain, wheres he's lived since he was 15 (so I vote that per MOS:NATIONALITY only list nationalities where subject established themselves). While others say he must be Georgian, because he walks out to compete under a Georgian flag. All of which is complicated by the fact that you can find sources that call him 'Georgian', 'Spanish', 'Spanish-Georgian', 'German-born Spanish-Georgian', etc.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Ilia Topuria#Nationality, Talk:Ilia Topuria#Citizenship

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Either tell us to use all, none or one of the nationalities

Summary of dispute by Cassiopeia

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

Base on MOS:NATIONALITY guidelines, the subject current resident and citizen where he was notable should be on the LEAD section which is Spain and not other country where he was born (Germany doesnt allow dual citizenship) or Georgia where he lived from 7-15 y/o where Spain does have dual citizenship with Georgia. We have a lot of cases in mixed martial arts fighter whereby editors keep on changing subject countries in lead based on their ethnicity/bloodline/heritage/where their parents or which country(ies)/the whole world that the subject wanted to represent and not based on where they were born or where they lived when they are notable as per Wikipedia MOS:NATIONALITY guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 09:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Subject confirmed that he does not have Spanish citizenship:

https://twitter.com/pelunaton/status/1760725558114275347

So as per wikipedia guidlines he should be listed as Georgian only Caucasian Man (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DrakeXper

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

Ilia Topuria doesn't have Georgian nationality. He officially has Spanish nationality and represents, as a UFC fighter, both Georgia and Spain.

According to MOS:NATIONALITY, I think the correct way to resolve this discussion is:

• We affirm Topuria is of Spanish nationality, with mention that he is of Georgian origin/ethnicity.

• We eliminate nationality from the equation as it is controversial, and simply state on the lede that he is "a Georgian and Spanish professional mixed martial artist..." omitting the mention of "nationality" in the infobox.

DrakeXper (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Lemabeta

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

Both Georgia and Spain don't allow dual citizenship to each other, yet all the sources available claim that he has both Georgian and Spanish citizens. MOS:Nationality says that when there's a controversial or unclear cases nationality can be omitted, as shown in an example of Nicolaus Copernicus under MOS:Nationality. Therefore this(taking out Georgian or Spanish from the heading page) is one of the solution we can use to resolve this dispute.--Lemabeta (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Or an ethnicity can play a deciding factor as passport is unclear and be written as Georgian, until further clarification. Lemabeta (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Caucasian Man

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

First, he officially represents Georgia at the UFC. It is not just the flag, he is officially listed as Georgian in the UFC: https://www.espn.com/mma/fighter/_/id/4350812/ilia-topuria

Every source claims he holds dual citizenship. If we go with wikipedia guidelines, even if he only held Spanish citizenship, his origin is relevant as he became known as a Georgian fighter and represents his country of origin. That's what the wikipedia guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context say: "Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability" Due to the reasons mentioned above, that "unless" is relevant here and he must be listed as a Georgian, granted. Thus, we can list the subject as "Georgian" or "Georgian and Spanish". Can't live "Georgian" out.

Summary of dispute by BasilE99

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

Summary of dispute by FCBWanderer

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

Summary of dispute by WikiJuan

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

Summary of dispute by Gsfelipe94

Topuria should be listed as Georgian and a relevant mention for him being based on Spain should also be added. The matter of fact is that he's chosen to officially represent Georgia in UFC related issues (walkout gear and official info on the main media), but that doesn't stop him from also carrying his Spanish roots. We've had several fighters do it before and I'm pretty this would not be an issue if he was born there instead of Germany. What Cassiopeia brings to the table is an unidimensional view (just like she brought up when we had issues changing fighters' last names when they got married - luckily that's not an issue anymore), so I don't think we should list him as Spanish based on that. A good example for it is Diego Lopes who is a Brazilian fighter based in Mexico. We don't list him as Mexican based on what Cassiopeia said. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Gsfelipe94 I suggest you to read MOS:NATIONALITY. It is not about what country he wants to represents or his root. As per changing fighter names of the articles, I still stand by WP:COMMONNAME name to change the article names but not just because a subject married and automatically the subject name is changed, due to recent marriage and a small hand full of sources against 5 years of sources, as many editors (especially MMA editors do not understand the Wikipedia guidelines and do not care about Wikipedia guidelines) as they just want to edit which what seems to be reasonable of their standard but not per Wikipedia guidelines. It is tired and takes a lot of my time just to keep the guidelines stand against those editors who does not care about the guidelines - remember, after all this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia have guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 00:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. Wikipedia has tools for situations like this, and one of them is MOS:NATIONALITY. DrakeXper (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gsfelipe94, the example you have given with Diego Lopes is not good for this case.

Ilia Topuria officially only has Spanish nationality even though he is of Georgian origin/ethnicity. According to MOS:NATIONALITY, It should mention that he is of Spanish nationality or, in the worst case, avoid mentioning his nationality to avoid getting into controversies.

But aside from all this, he declares himself Spanish and Georgian, and the official UFC account uses both countries (Georgia and Spain) as representative countries. DrakeXper (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The Diego Lopes example was related to the subject current resident and citizen where he was notable as an unidimensional view. I'm not going to dwell on the other things because every single time we had those situations regarding names it was 1 against everyone else on the same type of behavior and the same arguments above where used (funny that in the end all the articles' titles were moved).

And your example of a tweet wasn't good as well. Plenty of other fighters will fall into the same category (for example when they had Cain Velasquez with both the US and Mexico flags). I'd like to know where is the source that shows he only has Spanish nationality. That's the type of thing that ends discussions, though there's none of it here. It's just a bunch of suppositions as of now. If there's solid evidence of his nationality, then obviously everything else won't matter. I have no agenda whatsoever to list him as Georgian or Spanish. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

We know that he arrived in Spain when he was 15 years old, and that he became naturalized Spanish.

• "The Georgian by birth (here means origin/blood, etc) and nationalized in Spain [...]"
• "[...] the 25-year-old young man of Georgian parents and naturalized Spanish.

Although sometimes It is stated that he is of dual nationality, actually, due to the context, what they are referring to is that he feels equally Georgian and Spanish. In the legal dimension, we know that Spain does not admit dual nationality with Georgia.

In any case, and most importantly, if the nationality is way too controversial, according to MOS:NATIONALITY, we can omit "nationality" (from the infobox for example) and just say that he is a Georgian and Spanish fighter. Saying that Topuria is just a Georgian working or "based on Spain" is frankly quite incorrect in my opinion. DrakeXper (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the latter would be incorrect. I believe that the option of removing "nationality" would solve most of the problems or say that he's Spanish with Georgian heritage. What's confusing is that everything else is that he's always represented Georgia on his fight kits and the fact that he was born in a neutral country to that discussion makes matter worse.

Like I said, Velasquez was 100% American, but he used to represent Mexico in several fights and was always listed as American at the stats. Clearance on this would be great to updated List of UFC Champions for example. As of now we have him listed as Georgian, but based on those arguments, he could be shifted to Spanish. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SpyroeBM

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

I suggest that the nationality be omitted from the lede outright, there are no reliable and independent sources (using this list as a guideline) that state Topuria's nationality status, and I would be wary of Spanish sources due to bias unless they have been vetted by other editors. A solution to his would be to follow the lede format used by the editing team over at the football/soccer section of Wikipedia for players of dual or unknown nationality (e.g. Alphonso Davies, Diego Costa, Pepe and etc.), where the nationality part can be explained in a different paragraph. For a UFC related example, Khamzat Chimaev nationality was a big talking point, where we had some editors (and for the sake of honesty myself included) go under the assumption that he was only Swedish and should be listed as such; albeit it was later revealed that he never acquired said citizenship and had only been representing Sweden. Due to the precedence of this issue, I suggest for neutrality and for the sake of not being controversial, the nationality should not be made a focal point in the lede. SpyroeBM (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Upon further research (a total of 5 minutes), Topuria's nationality has been highlighted as the following; Sky Sports and Jack Baer of Yahoo News has listed Topuria as a Spaniard while the editing team at ABC News Australia and Marc Raimondi of ESPN highlight that he is a Georgian living and training in Spain, with special attention to Raimondi's quotation as "Topuria was born in Germany to parents of Georgian descent. His family moved back to the Republic of Georgia when he was young then later to Alicante, Spain. Topuria lives and trains in Spain -- his nickname is "El Matador" -- but also represents Georgia." With the ambiguity of his nationality sourced with material vetted on Wikipedia source list, his nationality should be explained in a separate paragraph, while I stand by my original point that the lede should not include nationality. SpyroeBM (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Ilia Topuria discussion

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

Zeroth statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)

I will open this case for preliminary discussion, for the purpose of starting a neutral Request for Comments to resolve the matter of the nationality or nationalities to list for the subject. This case involves a contentious topic, because it involves nationalities in Eastern Europe, which includes all of those countries that were under Soviet domination in the late twentieth century. For this reason, we will use DRN Rule D, so that by agreeing to the rule, the editors have received notice of contentious topic procedures. Do the editors agree that they want moderator assistance, which will consist mostly of formulating an RFC? What does each editor say should be listed as the nationality of the subject? Are there any other article content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)

Apparently some of you didn't read my zeroth statement, which said that we will be using DRN Rule D, or you read it but didn't read the rules, or you read the rules and decided not to agree to the rules. Read the rules again if you want to use this noticeboard. The rules say not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. You are to answer questions from the moderator (me) and address your answers to the moderator and the community. I will collapse any further back-and-forth discussion, and I may (at my discretion) close this case, in which case you will be able to continue back-and-forth discussion that is not getting anywhere. So read and follow the rules.

If you want assistance, I will ask questions in order to formulate a neutrally worded Request for Comments. So my first question is whether the content disagreement is about the infobox, or the lede sentence, or both. There should not be an argument about the body of the article, because the body of the article should explain in sufficient detail. My second question is: What do you want listed in the infobox as his nationality? My third question is: What do you want stated in the lede sentence as his nationality?

This case involves a contentious topic, because it involves nationalities in Eastern Europe, which includes all of those countries that were under Soviet domination in the late twentieth century.

Fourth, are there any other article content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Answer to:

First question: Both

Second question: Either eliminate the "nationality" section of the infobox, or mention both (Georgian and Spanish)

Third question: Maintain the claim that he is "Georgian and Spanish", and remove the current unnecessary and controversial claim that as a UFC fighter only represents Georgia.

Fourth question: There isn't as far as I can tell. DrakeXper (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)

It is not clear that we need an RFC. It appears that we may have agreement that the lede sentence should say that he is a Georgian fighter living in Spain, and that the infobox should list his nationality as Georgian and Spanish. If not, what does anyone else want the lede paragraph and the infobox to say? If an editor has a different opinion, then we probably do need an RFC, and, if so, please state what else the choices should include when I put together the RFC.

Are there any other article content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

this came out today, where he says (in Spanish) that he doesnt have Spanish nationality, so I change my stance and say we all drop it and list him as Georgian. Nswix (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly like Khamzat Chimaev when we thought he had Swedish citizenship but turned out he didn't. So yes, based on Wikipedia guidelines, we can remove Spanish altogether and list him as Georgian. I agree. Caucasian Man (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)

Is there agreement that he should be listed as Georgian, or do we need an RFC? If you have not already said that he should be listed as Georgian, please answer how you think he should be listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Tristan Tate

– New discussion.

Filed by Mr vili on 03:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Draft:Tristan Tate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mr vili (talk · contribs)
• PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs)
• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'm contesting the refusal to move a Wikipedia article about Tristan Tate to the main namespace, arguing that he meets notability criteria through significant media coverage, his accomplishments as a kickboxing champion, his reality TV appearance, and his extremely high profile criminal case.

Despite presenting various sources to establish his notability independently of his brother Andrew Tate, editor PARAKANYAA disputes the reliability and sufficiency of these sources, labeling many as unreliable and not indicative of standalone notability. My suggestion to resolve the issue through a community "Articles for Deletion" (AfD) discussion has been met with resistance, leading to a deadlock over the article's eligibility for mainspace, prompting me to seek dispute resolution to evaluate the article's merit for inclusion based on Wikipedia's notability standards.

I have done research to find notable sources with WP:SIGCOV, which have all referenced him in significance

• The Independent (UK)
• The Hindustan Times
• Essentially Sports
• Sidekick Boxing
• Sportsbrief
• Sportsrush
• Accumulate.com.au
• BBC News
• Reuters
• The Chess Drum
• Various Romanian news outlets
• Storm Gym
• MoneyMade.io

And so many more sources that you can find via a simple google search

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[1]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ideally, I would like the article to be moved to mainspace and immediately go through an AfD to settle the matter.

Summary of dispute by PARAKANYAA

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

I stand by my opinion that the sources that primarily address Tristan Tate are unreliable or passing mentions. What does address him in depth is solely in reference to the crime case his brother is involved in. The purpose of AfC is to approve articles into main space that the reviewer perceives as having a greater than 50% chance at surviving at AfD: I see virtually no chance this would. Also, I wasn't the first person to decline the draft and I didn't reject it, so he could have simply asked someone else (who would have likely said the same thing). This feels unnecessary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Robert McClenon

First, DRN is not a forum for disputes over the acceptance of drafts. They can be discussed at the AFC Help Desk or the Teahouse. Second, I cannot act as a moderator or mediator in this dispute, because I am involved, having previously commented on the draft. I observed that there was a history of sockpuppetry about drafts and articles about Tristan Tate, and that a reviewer should check whether edits to the drafts were made by sockpuppets or by good-faith editors. Third, I am willing to ignore the rule that drafts should only be accepted if the reviewer thinks that there is more than a 50% chance of surviving AFD, because the current editor is proposing that the draft be moved into article space for the purpose of a deletion discussion. It is my opinion that the interests of the encyclopedia will be advanced by a deletion discussion. So, if the filing editor wants to have a deletion discussion, and resubmits the draft for review, I will accept the draft so that it can be nominated for deletion, which will resolve the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with this assessment. I believe there is zero risk in moving the draft into mainspace for the purpose of undergoing an AfD. I am not attached with the outcome, but to say it has "virtually no chance" it would survive is somewhat absurd and biased.

I will resubmit the article for review Mr Vili talk 23:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon The article has been re-submitted Mr Vili talk 23:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Mr vili - The article has been accepted, and is now in article space, so that there can be a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon can we archive/close this dispute as it is now going through AfD which should be the final step in this process. Mr Vili talk 11:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Tristan Tate discussion

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

2024 F1 Academy season

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by LouisOrr27 on 22:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute 2024 F1 Academy season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved LouisOrr27 (talk · contribs) MSport1005 (talk · contribs) Cerebral726 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the section about the entries of the season, there is a dispute about weather the teams should be listed in alphabetical order of the team name or numerical order of the drivers. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:2024_F1_Academy_season#Alphabetical How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Offer an opinion on the matter and discus it with the users involved. Summary of dispute by MSport1005 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Cerebral726 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 2024 F1 Academy season discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - Discussion at the talk page has been in progress for less than 24 hours. Sometimes continued discussion resolves the issue. Waiting for discussion to continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1977 anti-Tamil pogrom

– New discussion.

Filed by Cossde on 00:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cossde (talk · contribs)
• Oz346 (talk · contribs)
• Petextrodon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Current dispute is over cited content has been removed by two users Oz346 and Petextrodon who have repeatedly removed cited content added by me claiming "ruining the flow of the article with unnecessary details". Given the highly controversial nature of the article, I feel that the events leading up to the events of at the core of the article needs to be clearly stated to established the context of the events mentioned in the article. Furthermore, these events have been mentioned in the government commission that has been cited heavily to narrate the events that took place during the time covered by the article. However these editors feel that should focus on the pogrom which I feel that is non-WP:NPOV.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom#Discussion_on_background_section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Decide if the content that has been removed should be kept in the article.

Summary of dispute by Oz346

User Cossde wants to have an overly long background section, which expands greatly on Tamil separatism, anti police violence and the 1977 Tamil electoral history. See his preferred version here: [2]. I think this is of undue weight and that the current background section already summarises these topics concisely, without submerging the actual topic of the article which is the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom. His reliance on the framework of a government commission which has been described as being biased towards the government by other reliable sources, should not be the basis of how an encyclopaedic article on this topic is framed.

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

1977 anti-Tamil pogrom discussion

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

Zeroth statement by moderator (1977 pogrom)

I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two editors request a moderator. Please read DRN Rule A and follow the instructions. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.

Will each editor state briefly what they want to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). It is not necessary at this time to state why you want to change it or do not want to change it. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (1977 pogrom)

Cossde: Yes please. I would greatly appreciate your involvement in this matter and agree to follow the rules mentioned.

The key dispute at hand is over the that was added by my and removed by these editors over the write up of the prelude to the events of this article. The removed content explains the events leading up to the riots in August 1977 and were fully citied. These are supported by both primary and secondary sources. A primary source, the report of the Government public inquiry was used since it was heavily cited to detail incidents that took place during the riots, coving majority of the written content of this article. My request is that you review the deleted content and consider what needs to be included to develop a meaningful prelude section that covers the events leading up to the riots in August 1977. Cossde (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Montacute House

– New discussion.

Filed by A.D.Hope on 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Montacute House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• A.D.Hope (talk · contribs)
• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
• Murgatroyd49 (talk · contribs)
• Johnbod (talk · contribs)
• KJP1 (talk · contribs)
• AdamBlack89 (talk · contribs)
• EPEAviator (talk · contribs)
• The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs)
• Rodw (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The infobox of Montacute House is currently partially collapsed. I believe that it should not be based on MOS:COLLAPSE, which states that 'collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading.' It additionally states that 'a few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed details' and that 'if information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all.' I do not believe that either of these passages apply to this infobox, as the Template:Infobox historic site is used on many similar articles and, as far as I'm aware, this article, Little Moreton Hall, and (until recently) Rufford Old Hall are the only cases in which the infobox has been partially collapsed. This suggests an informal consensus that the collapsed parameters are not generally considered infrequently accessed or trivial.

Other editors have opposed this, preferring to keep the infobox collapsed. I won't speak for them, but I believe their positions are largely based on this 2009 discussion, in which a collapsed infobox was a compromise.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

The issue has been discussed extensively at Talk:Montacute House#Infobox collapse. I also opened a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:COLLAPSE, and have publicised both.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarification on how the MOS should be applied in this case would be helpful.

Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria

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

Summary of dispute by Murgatroyd49

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

Summary of dispute by Johnbod

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

Summary of dispute by KJP1

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

Unproductive, time-consuming and divisive edit wars over infoboxes have been ongoing since I joined in 2007. The MoS says, "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". The local consensus agreed at Montacute House, to use a collapsed infobox, has prevailed for 15 years. User:A.D.Hope's determination to overturn that consensus, pursued here, here, and now here, would re-ignite, rather than end, that debate, as we would then revert to the 2009 argument over whether to have an infobox at all. I have no wish to personalise this content dispute, but the filer's actions here follow a pattern, which has relevance. Examples include: Royal standards of Canada, forfeited honours, the Cornish flag and images of Essex. In each case, the issue is predicated on an interpretation of MoS, but in each case, the behaviour displayed is a determination to gain their point, and a refusal to acknowledge other views/interpretations. My suggested resolutions are that the prevailing consensus at Montacute House continues, and that the filer reflect on whether raising repeated RfCs, or continuing with their high-quality content contributions, is of greater benefit to Wikipedia's users. KJP1 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

If you had no wish to personalise this content dispute then you should not have written the second half of your comment. Your remarks are uncharitable, and do not show that I refuse to acknowledge other views or interpretations. To give a single example, you should note that I was open to other image options at Talk:Essex#Infobox images, and that I went to some effort to reconcile with Rupples after a misunderstanding.

In any case, this dispute is about Montacute, not me. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the guidance suggests we don't engage in a back-and-forth, but I'll leave that to the volunteer who picks this up. KJP1 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The guidance also states that you should 'comment on content, not contributors', but all three comments so far have contained personal comments about me. I hope you can understand why that would be difficult, but you're right that it goes against the guidance to reply.

I will disengage, but I'd like to note that I still have a great deal of respect you as an editor. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AdamBlack89

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

I really can’t be arsed to play with bad losers! This has been discussed ‘ad nauseam’ elsewhere. AdamBlack89 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by EPEAviator

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

Summary of dispute by The Lady Catherine de Burgh

Oh! How nice of you all to think of me, I don’t believe anyone has contacted me since poor Benito died in 1945. Such a charming man, did you know him too? So misunderstood! Now what is it you all want to discuss? I do charge for public comments. My nephew can send payment details if you care to enquire. I accept most credit cards, but cash is always nice if you have it. You see this is where the poor dear Phelips at Montacute House went so sadly wrong, they took their eye off the finances. Then, they let in that dreadful pompous Curzon man, with all his ‘sinning on tiger skins With Elinor Glyn? Or erring with her on some other fur?’ Well, it’s not good for people, they get hairs in their crevices and whatnots and they end up, wasting their time, on pages like this. So, I suggest you all get outside in the fresh air and go fishing or stalking, or even ratting, and do something useful and stop bothering very poor and defenceless old ladies such as myself! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR, I’ll reply directly…

I didn’t even read the original dispute (saw yr name on the left after being summoned for another thread), but we need more bubble-popping stuff like this. This sort of thing would be very productive in areas like, say, American politics.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rodw

I objected to the removal of the infobox in 2009, and accepted the collapsed version as a compromise with those who did not want it included at all. I continue to support including the information provided in the infobox for those that wish to be able to access this information quickly.— Rod ^talk 09:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Montacute House discussion

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

Zeroth statement by moderator (Montacute House)

I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two editors request a moderator, and agree to DRN Rule A. Some editors have not replied yet, and should reply to this statement if they wish to participate in discussion. Some editors have declined to take part in discussion. (We will not pay anyone for their opinion. Paid editing is discouraged in Wikipedia.) Two editors have correctly quoted two of the rules in DRN Rule A, so I will not repeat the rules, but I will ask the editors to state that they agree to the rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article in the encyclopedia, so the first step is to identify the scope of the content disagreement. I understand that one of the issues has to do with the infobox. We can discuss infobox issues and any other article content issues. Each editor who wishes to take part in this discussion is asked to make an introductory statement, which should state what they want to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Montacute House)

• Robert, to confirm, I'd be pleased for you to pick this up, and I will make every effort to abide by the requirements. Assuming that the filer is too, and I think they are, you have your necessary two editors. I think the dispute can be summarised as:

(1) Does MoS, or other policy/guidance/convention, preclude the use of a collapsed infobox, as currently in use at Montacute House, or is such a collapsed infobox an acceptable, article-specific, compromise which can legitimately be agreed by involved editors?

(2) I do think that a determination on the above should also include a consideration of next steps, that is: if a collapsed infobox cannot be used, should it be replaced by a full infobox, or by no infobox? My concern is that, unless we cover this point, we are back in the 2009 impasse to which the collapsed infobox was the resolution. KJP1 (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

p.s. I don't want to prolong/complicate this discussion, but input from a user who actually understands how infoboxes work on various technologies, might be useful. I'm a numpty on this issue but, when I try Montacute House on my mobile devices, iPad, iPhone and android phone, I get the collapsed infobox on opening. But when, as an example, I try Cragside, which has an uncollapsed infobox, I get the uncollapsed IB on the iPad and iPhone, but a collapsed IB, labelled "Quick Facts", on my android phone? I've no idea why, but I'm sure I've read that the majority of Wikipedia readers use mobile devices so it might be helpful to properly understand their experience. KJP1 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• I can also confirm that I'll abide by the rules, and I'm happy you've taken on the moderation, Robert. I agree with KJP1's points, and don't have anything further to add at the moment. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Montacute House)

I have read the background of this dispute, and I am changing the rules to DRN Rule D, because this is a dispute about an infobox, and infoboxes are a contentious topic, as found by the ArbCom in the second infobox case. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. You probably knew that, but it requires restating, because some editors are not civil in infobox discussions. It appears that this dispute has been simmering for fifteen years.

On the one hand, I see nothing in either the MOS or the ArbCom decisions that says that a collapsed infobox may be used as a compromise. On the other hand, I see nothing in either the MOS or the ArbCom decisions that says that a collapsed infobox may not be used as a compromise. It seems to me like the most unsatisfactory compromise, used because it makes all of the parties equally unhappy. I am asking each editor to state whether they think that the article should or should not have an infobox, if those are the only two choices. (A collapsed infobox is not a choice for this purpose.) If this dispute cannot be resolved by discussion, it will be resolved by a Request for Comments. It does not appear that there has been an RFC. It appears that in 2009 normal discussion led to an impasse, but with no attempt to use an RFC to bring in additional editors followed by formal closure. So please state your opinion as to whether there should be an infobox. These statements will be preliminary to an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Montacute House)

• On balance I would support an infobox, as, although not universally used, it's become common practice to have one in similar articles and I do believe that a summary of information such as the location, building phases, architectural style, and the builder is useful. It isn't essential that the article has one, however.

It may be tricky to attract enough attention to an RfC. Despite the current normal discussion having been open for nearly a month and being publicised, both it and the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:COLLAPSE have failed to attract many outside editors. I'm not against an RfC by any means, but it may not be fruitful unless it does have a wider participation.

If it's allowed, I'd be interested to if you have any thoughts on how MOS:COLLAPSE might apply in this case. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Given that choice, I would rather not have an infobox, but that is not really what this dispute is about. I would (and did) rather reluctantly accept having an infobox of reasonable size, complying with WP:INFOBOX, and only containing the key information that readers are likely to be interested in:"keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". This emphatically does not include 8 lines each on the "Listed Building – Grade I" and "National Register of Historic Parks and Gardens" listings, including the day of the months in respectively 1961 and 1984 when the registrations happened, and the two registration numbers. Not to mention the registered name, which in each case is, amazingly, "Montacute House". This cruft should not be in the infobox at all, but near the bottom of the text, probably in a footnote. The registrations should have a line each in the infobox, if there must be one. The collapsed infobox was a compromise, which, despite the old consensus being re-affirmed in recent discussions, A.D.Hope has been completely intransigent in refusing to accept. Wikipedia needs to decide whether it is an encyclopaedia or a database. The situation has I think got worse since 2009, when the gardens scheme had not been added to the box (or most similar houses). Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• If it were a personal choice, I would include an infobox. The articles I have taken to FAC, from broadly Start level, all include one. But I recognise that this view is not universally accepted. Therefore, for FA articles I have worked on at FAR where the original editors did not include one, e.g. Belton House, I have not imposed one. My position is thus to respect the views of the main contributing editors. Where I am that main contributing editor, I have one. Where I am not, and the intention of those that are is not to include an IB, I don't. This leads to my concern regarding an RfC. This will almost certainly have one of two outcomes. Either, as A.D.Hope suggests, it will attract little interest and be inconclusive. Or it will create another virulent and divisive time-sink, like this, or many, many other examples...and be inconclusive. We will not resolve the pro/anti Infobox debate here, because it is not capable of resolution. My own view is that we should therefore accept that there are differing, and equally valid, views as to the value of infoboxes, (see the two comments above), recognise that they are actually pretty unimportant in terms of the overall quality of an article, and to have policies/guidance that accommodate this divergence of view, including the option of a collapsed infobox. We have 6.7 million articles on Wikipedia, of which 6,437 are Featured Articles. We have to accept that there is more than one way to write a good one. KJP1 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Montacute House)

Some editors have expressed concerns that an RFC will not be adequately participated in, but that it will be a divisive timesink. I don't know of another way to resolve the infobox dispute over this article, which has been going on since 2009. Do the editors have another suggestion for how to resolve this ongoing disagreement? If the editors want me to choose one of the choices, either an infobox or no infobox, I will not make that choice. DRN is not content arbitration. I am again asking the editors to identify any other content issues that they wish to discuss, besides the infobox. If the pro-infobox editors wish to resolve the dispute, they can agree that the article does not need an infobox. If the anti-infobox editors wish to resolve the dispute, they can agree that the infobox summarizes content and is useful for casual readers. If an editor is negative about an RFC on an infobox, they can propose an alternate solution to the controversy, or can withdraw their "side" from discussion.

I have read the guideline on collapsing, and I do not see collapsing an infobox listed as a compromise between pro-infobox and anti-infobox factions. Evidently at least some editors think that the status quo of a collapsed infobox is undesirable. Any editor who does not want an RFC is invited to offer an alternative. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Montacute House)

• Second comment by KJP1. With the aim of trying to find a compromise, would a pared-back, un-collapsed, infobox be acceptable to those who would actually prefer not to have one at all, while including the "essential" detail, Grade I, Listed park, that those who favour an IB want? I'm envisaging something like the below. Sorry it makes a bit of a mess of the page. All of the "important detail/bureaucratic cruft" (take your pick!), listing numbers etc., could then go in a prose section. KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Robert - not wanting to breach the rules by a back-and-forth conversation, but just for clarity, my position on this article, if I had to chose between having an IB and not having an IB, would be not. This is because the main contributing editor - User:Giano, in two guises, at 41.3% - did not want one. This is exactly what I, and the late, lamented, Vami IV, did at the Belton House FAR, where Giano was again the lead contributor. I could have chosen to insert one there, and indeed I am now the main contributor on that article, but I chose not to. Ditto here, and here. KJP1 (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Robert, I think you might be inching us towards a compromise. Recognising that Rod did want an IB, and they are the second highest contributor to the article, if JohnBod could live with the truncated version illustrated, I could certainly do a prose paragraph, to go either above or below In popular culture, to contain those listing details, which we've all agreed we don't want in an IB. Perhaps if you were to frame that as a compromise solution, we could see if it flies? KJP1 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies for extending the back-and-forth – I'm only doing so to correct my misinterpretation of KJP1's first statement in my second statement below.

  Given KJP1 and Johnbod do not want an infobox, I would follow this consensus. I agree with KJP1's reasoning in following the wishes of the main contributor, assuming there are no other factors at play. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Montacute House
The garden facade
Location	Montacute, Somerset
Coordinates	50°57′09″N 2°42′58″W,
Owner	National Trust
Listed Building – Grade I
National Register of Historic Parks and Gardens
Location of Montacute House in Somerset

• An RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to clarify to what extent and in what circumstances infoboxes should be collapsed might be worthwhile. The current guideline isn't as clear as it could be, which has made the Montacute discussion more difficult.

Assuming collapsing isn't an option, the fact myself and KJP1 support an infobox and Johnbod can tolerate one suggests that having an infobox would be acceptable. Other editors may not agree with this, however.

I agree with Johnbod that the listed building parameters take up too much space. As this affects more than just the Montacute House article, discussion about modifying them should take place at template:infobox historic site. I would be happy to help with organising this. My preference would be to do this after the conclusion of the RfC about MOS:COLLAPSE mentioned above. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Montacute House)

I am providing a section for back-and-forth discussion about a compromise on a stripped-down infobox. I am also asking each editor who supports an infobox to state what they think is the minimum that they want in the infobox, and each editor who opposes an infobox to state what, if anything, they are willing to accept as a compromise. You may make these statements either as statements to the community (no back-and-forth responses) or back-and-forth statements. If back-and-forth discussion becomes repetitive, I will stop it and resume normal procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Boeing E-6B Mercury

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Khieatt on 19:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Boeing E-6 Mercury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Khieatt (talk · contribs) Binksternet (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The page contains inaccurate information on the plane's specifications, which has been updated by the Navy via the Navy Fact File. The original source material (the 2019 Navy Fact File) is no longer active (the link goes to an error page). I have tried to update the information and the source link but user Binksternet repeatedly undoes the changes. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Binksternet and I have discussed the issue but cannot reach a resolution. He continues to revert to the 2019 version of the fact file, which is no longer accurate. The plane's specs have changed due to modifications that have been made to the aircraft. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Help moderate the discussion with Blinksternet and approve the changes and updated source link. Summary of dispute by Binksternet Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Boeing E-6B Mercury discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russo-Ukrainian War

– New discussion.

Filed by Pofka on 10:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Russo-Ukrainian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pofka (talk · contribs)
• Mzajac (talk · contribs)
• Slatersteven (talk · contribs)
• Parham wiki (talk · contribs)
• RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk · contribs)
• Cinderella157 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hello, I and others attempted to reach a WP:Consensus regarding the role of Belarus in the article Russo-Ukrainian War, but the issue is quite complicated and requires a strong, broad and long-term WP:Consensus. I think that in the infobox (and elsewhere in this article) Belarus should be described as a "co-belligerent" or as "Supported by" in the side of Russia in this war (e.g. like that) because of Belarus exceptional role in this war which is already more than just "Supplied by" (e.g. military hardware to Russia).

The role of Belarus in this war is exceptional because during the highly intensified phase of this war since 24 February 2022 (see: Russian invasion of Ukraine), the Russian Army forces were allowed to: 1) invade Ukraine from the Belarusian territory through ground (1, 2); 2) Russian jets have taken off from Belarus (from Belarusian airbases) to subsequently enter Ukraine from Belarusian airspace (3); 3) Belarus allowed Russia full access to its military airbases for Russian military aircraft to launch aircraft and its army installations to shoot artillery and missiles from Belarusian territory towards Ukraine (4, 5); 4) see more info here: Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, although no evidence was collected that the Armed Forces of Belarus themselves invaded Ukraine (which would make Belarus a full belligerent in this war), the role of Belarus is clearly not equal to other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Germany to Ukraine; Iran/North Korea to Russia) because they have never allowed to use their territories for direct military actions against Ukraine/Russia (and their armies), while Belarus allowed to do that.

Many sources describe Belarus as a "co-belligerent" in this war: Institute for the Study of War (6, 7), Ukrainian sources (8, 9), and others (e.g. 10, 11).

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#Belligerents: supported by Belarus (the latest discussion about the role of Belarus where no consensus was reached; started in November 2023)
• Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive 20#Belarus' involvement (discussion about the role of Belarus in this war; started in March 2022)
• Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive 18#Belarus as a direct participant of the war in the first sentence (discussion about the role of Belarus in this war; started in February 2022)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think that a qualified help is necessary to start a broad WP:RFC discussion (by informing as many users as possible through Wiki projects, etc.) and reach a WP:CONS. I believe that in the upcoming RFC other users should be informed about my arguments provided here in the "Dispute overview" section. To simplify the upcoming RFC voting, I think that the users should be given three options regarding the role of Belarus: A) Co-belligerent; B) Supported by; C) Supplied by.

Summary of dispute by Mzajac

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

Summary of dispute by Slatersteven

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

At its heart, the issue really is not about Belarus, but attempts to claim parity with NATO.

Belarus allowed Russian forces to launch attacks from its soil but did not (as far as I am aware) participate. As such it both did more and less than just supplying arms. This creates a rather odd situation where they are not (technically) a belligerent but also are not uninvolved. Thus is seems that they need a middle-ground approach. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Parham wiki

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

Summary of dispute by RadioactiveBoulevardier

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

Summary of dispute by Cinderella157

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

Russo-Ukrainian War discussion

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

Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz

– New discussion.

Filed by Max19582 on 19:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Max19582 (talk · contribs)
• Egeymi (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the article's lede, I edited the minister's title to be capitalized, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Positions,_offices,_and_occupational_titles as it denotes the title, not the description. The change was reverted by User:Egeymi, who claimed the title should be kept in lowercase (they reverted it, so "Sienkiewicz has served as Minister of Culture and National Heritage" became "Sienkiewicz has served as minister of culture and national heritage" again). As I can see, the general consensus is that the titles of Polish ministers are capitalized - Barbara Nowacka, Adam Szłapka, Borys Budka, Adam Bodnar, among others. That's also how the official government website capitalizes it: [3].

We tried to discuss it in my talk page, but that was to no avail. The user kept on misquoting the policy, telling me to "read it carefully" instead.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

User_talk:Max19582#Caps_rule

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please let us know which formatting would be better.

Summary of dispute by Egeymi

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

Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz discussion

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

Boeing 737 MAX

– New discussion.

Filed by 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:89FF:2D6D:F1E7:E0E8 on 21:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Boeing 737 MAX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Martinevans123 (talk · contribs)
• RickyCourtney (talk · contribs)
• StalkerFishy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We have had an in-depth conversation on the Boeing 737 MAX talk page for multiple days regarding the use of the phrase "pilot error" in the article when referring to the Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian Airlines 320 accidents. At this point, I have provided many reliable secondary sources which go into great detail regarding the errors of the pilots, the development of the 737 MAX, and the results of the official accident reports. Some of these directly use the phrase "pilot error".

In my opinion, simply using a particular phrase which is widely accepted in the field being discussed requires no source, but even so, upon request from other editors I have provided sources which show direct evidence of both pilot error and the usage of the term in reliable secondary sources. There's even a Wikipedia article on Pilot Error.

Some of the sources I have provided include very technical language, and it seems like the significance of the information is perhaps lost on editors who are not familiar with the subject matter.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Boeing_737_MAX#Additional_lede_comments

Talk:Boeing_737_MAX#Major_updates_needed

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

If reliable secondary sources indicate that the pilots made errors, the article should include the phrase "pilot error", whether or not the sources themselves use the specific phrase. Reliable secondary sources which do specifically refer to "pilot error" have even been included, which I feel is more than enough evidence that the phrase is acceptable.

Summary of dispute by Martinevans123

• Question: is User:StalkerFishy also a party to this dispute? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not experienced with these notice boards, so please put me down as a third-party participant or something. I don't plan on directly defending the anon OP but will articulate my thoughts in a summary below.

  StalkerFishy (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying. I think this posting is premature as no proposed wording for addition to the article has yet been discussed, and is also, in my view, dependant on what is added at Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by RickyCourtney

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

Summary of dispute by StalkerFishy

We're trying to determine if the term "pilot error" should be included in the Boeing 737 MAX article & lede. The primary issue is that the term is not used in the Ethiopian [4] or Indonesian [5] accident investigation report, or the NTSB [6] and BEA [7] reports. However, the latter two reports explicitly state a couple key points, which are backed up and further expanded on by secondary sources:

• The incident aircraft was recoverable by following existing procedure (RUNAWAY STABILIZER checklist)
• The pilots of each aircraft were recently trained on this procedure
• The pilots failed to perform the applicable emergency checklist properly (RUNAWAY STABILIZER checklist)
• Pilots of the preceding Lion Air flight encountered the same problem but were able to recover the aircraft by using the RUNAWAY STABILIZER checklist, and continued the flight without event

So while the NTSB and BEA sources do detail the mistakes, inaction, and inadequate actions of the pilots, they never explicitly say "pilot error". I believe the crux of this dispute stems from if we should summarize the four points above into "pilot error". At least one secondary source does this for us [8]. If we don't, then the only way to detail the incidents accurately is by writing out these key points to describe how the aircraft crashed. If we do, we're using a semi-restrictive term more liberally than it usually is.

StalkerFishy (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAX discussion

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