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
Nivkh alphabets	In Progress	Modun (t)	21 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 3 hours	Modun (t)	19 hours
Wudu	In Progress	Nasserb786 (t)	12 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days,	Nasserb786 (t)	20 hours
Repressed memory	New	NpsychC (t)	5 days, 8 hours	None	n/a	NpsychC (t)	5 days, 8 hours
Thunderball	Resolved	Moneyofpropre (t)	2 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 7 hours
Queen Camilla	Closed	SKINNYSODAQUEEN (t)	2 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 13 hours
15.ai	In Progress	Ltbdl (t)	2 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 2 hours	Ltbdl (t)	1 days, 20 hours
Hypnosis	New	Skalidrisalba (t)	1 days, 12 hours	None	n/a	Skalidrisalba (t)	1 days, 12 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 19:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Public forum_debate#What_constitutes_excessive_detail?

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Cut card on 17:53, 25 January 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 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) Comment: It's now been five days, User:Pinkbeast should contribute to this discussion. I believe this version strikes the right balance between necessary information about the format, and avoiding unnecessary instructional information. Cut card (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Comment: This is getting ridiculous. The discussion and dispute resolution necessitates talk from both parties. User:Pinkbeast, please respond. Cut card (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Volunteer note If Cut card agrees, I think it would be best to close this thread, at least for the time being. No discussion is going on. If the dispute resumes at the Public Forum Debate page, this thread could be reopened or other measures could be taken by the participants. RobbieM13 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Volunteer note @Cut card: Would you be happy for me to close this thread for now? RobbieM13 (talk) 19:15, 17 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.

Talk:National Security Agency

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by AceTankCommander on 23:47, 2 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 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) 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.

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.

Note: Please don't archive this yet. It pertains to a new complaint (this same one continued). 40.117.60.104 (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

2019 World Rally Championship

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Mclarenfan17 on 04:23, 9 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

• 2019 World Rally Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs)
• Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs)
• Klõps (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute centres on the "entries" table. Editors are divided as to whether one table should be used or two.

(PS - this is the third time that I have tried to submit the DRN; the other two were closed because they were not submitted properly.)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The issues has been discussed on the article talk page and at WikiProject World Rally.

How do you think we can help?

By providing more voices to the debate and helping settle the issue once and for all.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. 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.
6. 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).
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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:

1. 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 consensus 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

For the record, Prisonermonkeys and Mclarenfan17 are the same person. I forgot my password for the Prisonermonkeys account a few months ago and created the Mclarenfan17 account today. I thought it wisest to post this here in case there are any questions. Mclarenfan17 (talk)

Summary of dispute by Klõps

The dispute was between me (+some other editors) and and an anonymous IP editor on dynamic IP (Usually on or two edits per one address). He now has registered an account, but during all these interactions he was the IP editor (see closing statement for the previous case for details [1]).

What and how happened

An IP editor had changed the entries table format on 2019 World Rally Championship. As those season articles in any sports project are part of a larger series I reverted back to project standard style (the difference was that in the Project standard way there are two tables for contracted drivers and privately entered drivers. The IP editor joined and mixed those into one big table). There were discussions. Most notably, as the article is a part of larger series, at World Rally Project talk page.

In the discussion two editors beside me were against the changes:

• Tvx1, wrote: I disagree with the notion that the format should be changed. Despite the evolution of the rules, there is still clear separation with between manufacturer and non-manufacturer points eligible entries. It is clear from the recent edits to the articles that the one table format does create confusion for our readers. [2]
• Kovpastish, who also did not see any problem with the table: Ultimately I'd vote for two seperate tables, the way we've had it for years is fine. [3]
• There was one more editor who was neutral. No editors supported IP editor (Mclarenfan17).

My arguments

World Rally Championship currently has two kinds of drivers – main manufacturer drivers and privately entered drivers. In the article they are sorted separately.

I'm not a fan of large tables. So my arguments came from perspective that grouping and sorting should be so that the reader gets the clearest overview. The media focuses on the manufacturer drivers. Between the seasons the main theme was which drivers will be hired by which team. Privately entered drivers mostly get limited coverage and they compete in a limited number of rallies (in 2018 out of 14 privately entered crews 13 competed in one rally each). You can see in the 2018 season article that putting those two tables in one and mixing them up would create one massive table that will confuse the reader.

Mclarenfan17 was countering my arguments with:

• the idea that we should follow FIA rules and that FIA considers all WRC cars equal.[4], [5], [6] etc.

I don't think that Wikipedia articles need to follow rules of some international organisation and anyhow the way the article is does not imply that the cars are not equal or that they run in different classes.

• constantly demanding sources to support how table is sorted claiming that his way is sourced. [7], [8], [9] etc.

I don't think that how a table is sorted (style) is a matter of sources. In both ways all the same information from the same sources is in the table. Only sorted differently. --Klõps (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 World Rally Championship discussion

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

•  Note to participants: @Mclarenfan17: Hello - I believe you are re-filing the same case that was closed 2-3 days ago. I'm not sure if you noticed the comments Robert_McClenon made when the initial case was closed but the requested next step was to continue discussion at the article talk page. I checked and do not see any further discussion has taken place following the closure of the initial case so it might be worth while to try that first. airuditious (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - This case was previously dismissed because the filing party was using IP addresses rather than creating a new account. Since the filing party has taken the advice to create a new account, there is no reason not to accept this case now. Further discussion at the talk page would have been reasonable but is not required. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I am willing to act as the moderator. I don't know anything about the content of this case. It is the responsibility of the parties in the case, who do know the content, to explain what the content issues are well enough so that I will understand. Please read the rules and follow the rules. In particular, I expect the parties to reply to any requests or questions within 48 hours. Be civil and concise. Overly long explanations are not helpful. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Do not reply to each other or engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your replies to me. (You already tried back-and-forth discussion, and have decided to try something else.)

Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

@Robert McClenon — the issue is the format of the entry list and whether it should be one table or two. I believe that it should be one table because one table is a more appropriate format for the article. I have three reasons for this: (1) The purpose of the entry list should be to give details of who entered an event. Making distinctions between manufacturers and non-manufacturers is an added layer of complexity that is unnecessary as there is another table in the article that details who those manufacturers are. (2) Being a manufacturer entry affords you no special privileges; every crew in the entry list(s) is treated equally. I feel that splitting the entry list into manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries over-emphasises the importance of the manufacturer entries. (3) Finally, there are some circumstances where splitting the table is appropriate; for example, the 2006 article. This was appropriate because the sport has used some complex rules about how crews enter in the past, but those rules were simplified in 2011. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(Oops — that should read @Robert McClenon.) Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Klõps

The dispute was between me (+some other editors) and and an anonymous IP editor on dynamic IP (Usually on or two edits per one address). He now has registered an account, but during all these interactions he was the IP editor (see closing statement for the previous case for details [10]).

What and how happened

An IP editor had changed the entries table format on 2019 World Rally Championship. As those season articles in any sports project are part of a larger series I reverted back to project standard style (the difference was that in the Project standard way there are two tables for contracted drivers and privately entered drivers. The IP editor joined and mixed those into one big table). There were discussions. Most notably, as the article is a part of larger series, at World Rally Project talk page.

In the discussion two editors beside me were against the changes:

• Tvx1, wrote: I disagree with the notion that the format should be changed. Despite the evolution of the rules, there is still clear separation with between manufacturer and non-manufacturer points eligible entries. It is clear from the recent edits to the articles that the one table format does create confusion for our readers. [11]
• Kovpastish, who also did not see any problem with the table: Ultimately I'd vote for two seperate tables, the way we've had it for years is fine. [12]
• There was one more editor who was neutral. No editors supported IP editor (Mclarenfan17).

My arguments

World Rally Championship currently has two kinds of drivers – main manufacturer drivers and privately entered drivers. In the article they are sorted separately.

I'm not a fan of large tables. So my arguments came from perspective that grouping and sorting should be so that the reader gets the clearest overview. The media focuses on the manufacturer drivers. Between the seasons the main theme was which drivers will be hired by which team. Privately entered drivers mostly get limited coverage and they compete in a limited number of rallies (in 2018 out of 14 privately entered crews 13 competed in one rally each). You can see in the 2018 season article that putting those two tables in one and mixing them up would create one massive table that will confuse the reader.

Mclarenfan17 was countering my arguments with:

• the idea that we should follow FIA rules and that FIA considers all WRC cars equal.[13], [14], [15] etc.

I don't think that Wikipedia articles need to follow rules of some international organisation and anyhow the way the article is does not imply that the cars are not equal or that they run in different classes.

• constantly demanding sources to support how table is sorted claiming that his way is sourced. [16], [17], [18] etc.

I don't think that how a table is sorted (style) is a matter of sources. In both ways all the same information from the same sources is in the table. Only sorted differently. --Klõps (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

I requested short statements by the editors as to what the dispute is about. The filing editor provided a short statement saying that the dispute is about whether to have one table or two tables. The other editor provided a long statement, not in the space for a first statement (but that is not a real problem) that I have copied. Please summarize it to one paragraph, and put that summary in the space for Second Statements by Editors. The filing editor may provide one paragraph of response to the other party's comments.

Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. That means do not criticize the other editor, but you may criticize their position on what should be in the article.

After each editor has made a reasonable short statement of their views, then we will know whether compromise is possible. This might turn out to be a case where compromise is not possible because it is a yes-no question, such as one table or two. Yes-no questions are usually best resolved by a Request for Comments. However, the first step is knowing what the scope of the disagreement is. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

@Robert McClenon — Klops' argument centres on three main points, which I would like to directly address:

1. That there is a clear separation between manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries. However, this is not necessarily the case as evidenced by this source (source #32 in the article), which states "the car, privately entered by Gronholm, will be run by Toyota Gazoo Racing, but not as part of the factory effort". Gronholm entered the car but Toyota's manufacturer team run it for him. Indeed M-Sport's business model is based on teams purchasing a car and M-Sport operate that car for them. In both cases, all of the data gathered by the privateer teams will be fed back to the manufacturer teams. This question of what constitutes entering a car and operating a car is currently the subject of a discussion at WikiProject World Rally.
2. That separation of the tables is justified because privateers only contest some rounds. However in other championships some drives only contest part of the championship but the articles do not split their driver tables. Case in point, 2017 Formula One World Championship where Scuderia Toro Rosso entered five drivers.
3. Finally, there is the idea that the article should not be changed because previous related articles use the existing style. However, I have never accepted this as a particularly valid argument because it effectively means that an article can never change and that the 2019 article should first serve the needs of the 2018 article before its own. If it is to be indebted to other articles, then there is the question of which article it should be indebted to. 2019 Rally Sweden is far more relevant to 2019 World Rally Championship than 2018 World Rally Championship is. The Rally Sweden article does not distinguish between manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries, so surely the 2019 championship article should not.

In my view, there should only be a single table with no mention of points eligibility. However, I have proposed a solution which I feel adequately addresses all concerned parties. This employs a single-table format but adds the ability to sort the table, including sorting based on points eligibility. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Klõps. I think that to change the entries table first a agreement should have been reached on project talk, because the article is part of the series of season articles all using same layout and style. Using the same style is less confusing for the readers. We had three editors, active in the project, disagreeing with Mclarenfan17 and no one supporting him. I think the issue is in style. The style has little to do with FIA rules or the official entry lists for the races. Moreover these lists use different styles.^{[19] [20]} I support structurising the information into smaller bites over making one large table. I don't think that having privately entered drivers who are not competing for manufacturers points sorted in second table next to the other table will somehow imply that these crews are not competing in same class or are not equal in the races with other drivers. I believe the prose above the table clears this issue. I think that looking at the 2018 season I'd prefer 19 row table and 16 row table next to each other over one large 35 row table where the drivers are mixed up. I think that the situation can't be compared to other series where private drivers are not allowed to compete in race-by race basis. --Klõps (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

I see three possible alternatives:

• 1. One table.
• 2. Two tables.
• 3. One table with sortability as described by Mclarenfan.

Which of these options is acceptable to each of the editors? You may also propose another option of your description. You must agree that at least one table format is acceptable, and may agree to between one and four formats. If any format is agreed to by both editors, we will work to finalize that agreement. If there is no overlap, we will discuss whether there are any more options, and will also work toward defining the Request for Comments. Be concise in your answers.

If there are any other issues besides the table or tables, define them concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

@Robert McClenon — I would accept one table or one table with sorting. One table is my preference, but one table with sorting offers more opportunities for compromise. At the very least it satisfies my desire for one table and Klops' desire for the ability to easily identify manufacturer entries. I have proposed an idea of what that might look like, but it is certainly not a definitive version; we can work to finalise how the sorting might work later. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for my late answer. One table or two tables as long as the structure stays so that entries eligible and ineligible to score manufacturer points are not mixed up. Two tables can be joined, but not mixed up. Nothing against sortability, though for me it seems unnecessary (I do not support adding invisible parameter as the table as Mclarenfan17 did with rounds column, in his suggested table nor the small added key table with one option). The options must be discussed in WP:WRC with other editors so that other project pages could be adapted to the same style. There was other editor against this option in the discussion [21]. --Klõps (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator

Since there is agreement that each party is willing to accept one table, I will ask each editor to provide a description of a format for the table that they think will satisfy the other editor. That should mean addressing the eligibility to score manufacturer points while keeping all of the entries in one table. If both editors can agree, then we have a resolution. If not, then we can work to get an agreement. Will each editor please describe what they think should be in the table, and how it addresses the other editor's concerns? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

@Robert McClenon — before I begin, there are two points raised by Klops that I would like to address. Firstly, his insistence that any proposal we create here be put to the WikiProject. While I understand the importance of this, I feel it is important that if a proposal were put to the WikiProject, then it would be on the condition that Klops supports it there. It would be too easy to voice support here, but oppose it there, which would be in bad faith and would undermine the point of DRN.

Secondly, and perhaps of more immediate importance, is his request that manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries be separate within the table. I do not think this is necessary. It is quite possible for us to create a table that demonstrates the distinction without needing to separate them in the table. If someone does not understand how it is structured after we have finished it, then I don't think that will be because of a failure of the table.

As for the format of the table, I think my proposed solution is a good starting point. These tables are quite large as they involve some complex markup, so I have created a space in my sandbox in which we can display the different formats. This version uses a shaded cell in the rounds column to distinguish between manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries, although this could be expanded to include other cells. Other possibilities include the use of icons, such as this table; the use of footnotes; or the use of wikilinks between the entry table and the results matrix. The sandbox is really just for illustrative purposes and by no means perfect (for example, the "icons" format uses a yellow M box to mark manufacturers, but the tyre column uses a dark blue M box to indicate Michelin tyres).. I think it's best if we find a format that we like and fine-tune it from there. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator

The filing editor has raised a valid concern about putting the result to WT:WikiProject World Rally. If the other editor wants to get the concurrence of the participants in a WikiProject, perhaps the WikiProject is a better place to discuss the table format than this noticeboard. This noticeboard does not handle a dispute that is also pending anywhere else (a common reason for dismissing cases). I would still like a response from Klops about question 4 about a proposed format for the table. However, I would also like to know whether the editors are willing to transfer this discussion to WikiProject World Rally. If they think that moderation is in order, I am willing to continue moderation there, or they can just discuss at the project talk page and let anyone participate in a moderator-like role. So I see three possibilities. The first is to continue this discussion as is, and reach a compromise. The second is to continue discussion here, but to publicize this discussion at the Rally talk page and allow other editors to join in this discussion. The third is to move this discussion to the Rally talk page. I recommend the second option, but am willing to continue where the parties want. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors

@Robert McClenon — I agree that publicising the discussion at the WikiProject but continuing it here would be best. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

First I'd object Mclarenfan17 claims of 'bad faith' on taking the discussion to WikiProject. I can say only what my opinion is, but my or Mclarenfan17 opinion alone can't be decisive on how the project articles are. I think the best option is that Mclarenfan17 makes his proposals at WP:WRC in a clear way so everyone will understand what he wants, also Robert McClenon moderation would be greatly appreciated there. On question 4... It's quite clear that Mclarenfan17 only accepts formats in which crews eligible and ineligible to score manufacturer points are mixed. I support sorting them in the order as they are now. It's opinion against opinion, so the best solution would be to see what other editors think. Again with moderation, so that the discussion would not go back to arguments about one style being unsourced etc. --Klõps (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator

It appears that Mclarenfan17 wants to continue the discussion here. It appears that Klõps wants to take the discussion to the WRC talk page. Is Mclarenfan17 willing to take the discussion to the WRC talk page? Is Klõps willing to continue the discussion here? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors

.

User talk:2601:1C0:CC02:E445:FD9E:F221:8837:7DF1

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2601:1C0:CC02:E445:BDE7:56D1:18FF:BBFE on 17:16, 9 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:2601:1C0:CC02:E445:FD9E:F221:8837:7DF1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Serols (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The album title is currently incorrect. Look at the image of the album, which is right there on the page - it is clearly "Hoochie Cooche Man" rather than "Hoochie Coochie Man" as currently listed. Discogs verifies the spelling of "Cooche" as correct, as does the copy of the actual album I have in my possession. User "Serols" has reverted my edits - twice - and refuses to engage in discussion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Multiple attempts at editing and communicating with Serols. How do you think we can help? Verify the accuracy of my edit by (1) looking at the album cover image, and (2) cross-referencing with the (correct) discogs entry. Summary of dispute by Serols Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:2601:1C0:CC02:E445:FD9E:F221:8837:7DF1 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.

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration_workshop#Houthis_(fictional_flags)

– General close. 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 RainbowSilver2ndBackup on 19:05, 9 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 Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/Feb 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk · contribs) شرعب السلام (talk · contribs) (SharabSalam) Dispute overview I made four fictional Houthi flags as satire. But the user named "شرعب السلام" takes these satirical files way too seriously and thinks that they are a "POV" and "propaganda". I've marked them with a template that states that these are fictional flags. Theres also a category in Commons that focused on political satire. He then threaten to report me to the admins just because I made these files just for the purpose of satire. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I told him that is it fictional and for satire. How do you think we can help? You can tell him that Wikimedia Commons allows satirical files and that he should not take satire seriously. Summary of dispute by SharabSalam @Aleding: Hi, regarding your second point I am not going to discuss the deletion here but here is the nomination and the discussion and there are already three editors who support the deletion two of them are admins (according to RainbowSilver2ndBackup, they are taking it "too seriously"). He claims I am taking it too seriously this might be partially true but he didn't clarify that these flags are on purpose of satire until I have already asked experienced editors that if I can nominate these flags for deletion, until I have made all of the comments about the flags and until he accused me for "taking things too seriously". check the history of some the flags [22] [23] [24] After this, I guess it is understandable why I took these flags "too seriously" although I believe that I honestly take absolutely nothing in Wikipedia "too seriously". He has a history with Houthi-related articles like adding made up categories (All of his Houthi-related categories have got deleted BTW) into Houthi-related articles etc etc. I honestly think he is the one who should take things too serious when he for example put a category like "criminal family" into Houthi article.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration_workshop#Houthis_(fictional_flags) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Note to participants: @RainbowSilver2ndBackup: Hello - you mentioned you had discussed this on a Talk page - can you point me to which one? I checked the article and the editor's talk pages and didn't find any discussion relating to these images or this dispute. I also checked the actual project article page and did not see this specific issue mentioned. Thanks. airuditious (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)  Note to participants: I just found the flags and the discussion you mentioned - it appears like this was just archived. To avoid any further confusion, I will update the link in the case details. airuditious (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)  Note to participants: Hello all - after doing a bit more research, I have decided to volunteer as moderator for this case. Two quick things to mention: (A) I do not see that all editors have had a notice from the filer placed in their Talk pages - this may be why the other editor's have not yet provided their feedback here; (B) @SharabSalam: In the project's talk page, you mentioned that all 3 images have been nominated for deletion. I did check the current Files for discussion page as well as the delete nominations and was unable to find anything related to the images under dispute. Can you please provide a pointer to that nomination? Once all editors have been notified and feedback received, then we can continue - Thanks. airuditious (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)  Note to participants: @Aleding: Should we have a instant negotiation here? I'm tired arguing with Salaam and I don't want anything bad or crazy to happen that anyone can't control. In case things goes awry, I think we should close this and a deal for each of us. I know the Houthis are one of the most controversial people on this planet. The reason why I think that the Houthis are a "criminal family" is because these articles. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)  Note to participants: @SharabSalam:@RainbowSilver2ndBackup: Thank you for the pointer to the image deletion request. Next, I do sense a bit of frustration which I can relate to - content disputes can get get heated at times but I need to remind everyone that we can only deal with the content aspect of this dispute here. That said, I have a had a chance to read the deletion request and because these same images are currently under review via that more formalized process, and because the result of that process would basically supersede what resolution may be reached here, I feel it only appropriate to close this case in deference to the RfD process. Also, please keep in mind that DR requests cannot be accepted if the same dispute is currently being handled via various other processed. Please see the header of the noticeboard for more details - Thanks. airuditious (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)  Note to participants: Should we apologize to each other for the mishaps? I think that these flags and my edits regarding the Houthis are useless anymore, I've changed my mind. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)  Note to participants: I always think it beneficial to apologize to individuals that may have somehow been slighted. Someone much wiser than me opined that apologies really don't cost that much but often pay massive dividends (please don't ask me who that wise person was). That said, I suppose those comments could be left here but in my experience, I've found such comments are best left on individual User Talk pages. airuditious (talk) 23:17, February 9, 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.

Talk:The Red_Tent_(film)

– New discussion.

Filed by Goochelaar on 13:35, 10 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:The Red Tent (film) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Goochelaar (talk · contribs)
• Galassi (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article mentions that Claudia Cardinale was the “mistress” of the producer of the film "The Red Tent" (1969), Franco Cristaldi. Other sources, among which our articles Claudia Cardinale and Franco Cristaldi, as well as the book Enrico D'Anna, Volo & cinema. Storia del cinema d'aviazione, Edizioni De Luca, Rome 1997 (p. 72), talking specifically about this film, and most any movie encyclopedia, say that they were married since 1966. Another editor, Galassi, has reverted twice, on different occasions, my edits in this regard, on the basis of a single web page in Russian about one of the screenwriters of the film. In the latest edit I had left both versions, “mistress” and wife, and added D'Anna's book as a source.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to clarify the situation both on the Talk page of that article and on the talk page of the reverting editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Galassi#Cardinale_and_Cristaldi and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Galassi#D'Anna_and_Nagibin).

How do you think we can help?

I seem to gather from all sources that Cardinale was indeed the producer's wife, but I'd be happy to leave both versions (even of I find it slightly insulting, and about a living person, calling her a “mistress”).

Summary of dispute by Galassi

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

Nagibin, a direct participant, states that Cardinale was a paramour. She married eventually, but her marriage was unrecognized in Italy for some years. Any claim of her being a "wife" at the time is a WP:UNDUE irrelevancy.--Galassi (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

In any case - I don't see any reason why this had to be discussed here rather than on the talk page.--Galassi (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Red_Tent_(film) discussion

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

•  Note to participants: Hello - before jumping in to moderate, let me first ask @Galassi:, are you saying you would prefer to continue discussion at the article's Talk page before moving further here? It seems possible a resolution could be achieved there but I would just like to remind everyone to try and focus on the content itself and reasons why it should or should not be included. While content disputes can feel personal, I try to always remember that WP:GF is really powerful tool. Please let me know which path is desirable and if the choice is here, I will open the case and begin moderation - Thanks. airuditious (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Personally I am not sure what more can be achieved by a discussion on a Talk page: I have shown that Cardinale was Cristaldi's wife at the time of the film production (here is another source, in renowned Treccani encyclopedia), while the other editor, on the basis on a single web page, denies it. Among other things, if he were right, several other Wikipedia pages should be changed. Thanks, Goochelaar (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - Do the parties want a moderator to facilitate discussion? If this is a yes-no question about whether two people were legally married, a Third Opinion or a Request for Comments might work. If the parties want a moderator, a moderator will be requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Shabir Ally

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ahmed M Farrag on 08:47, 13 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 Shabir Ally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ahmed M Farrag (talk · contribs) GorgeCustersSabre (talk · contribs) Dispute overview After adding a list of debates for Shabir Ally, they were removed twice, first citing their size then citing their verifiability. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to discuss it on the article's talk page after the first removal How do you think we can help? A second opinion on the matter would help, specially that this matter is repeated in other pages like Michael R. Licona's that has a list of his debates as well. Summary of dispute by GorgeCustersSabre Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Shabir Ally 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.

Talk:Young Living#Prohibited_marketing_claims

– New discussion.

Filed by Alweth on 04:33, 14 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:Young Living#Prohibited marketing claims (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bilby (talk · contribs)
• Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs)
• Alweth (talk · contribs)
• Grayfell (talk · contribs)
• CircularReason (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The subject of the article, Young Living, a company that sells essential oils via multi-level marketing, was warned by the FDA for marketing some of their products in a way that would categorize them as drugs by the FDA. One editor, Bilby, wants to include the detail in the section on the controversy that it was some of Young Living's "consultants" (ie. members of their multi-level marketing program) that were identified by the FDA as making some of the relevant claims. Another editor, Rhode Island Red, is rejecting all proposals and reverting all changes to that effect, for a variety of reasons, ultimately arguing that it "diffuses responsibility." I, Alweth think some of Bilby's proposals have enough merit for inclusion, but have not been able to build any consensus.

Rhode Island Red accuses Bilby and I of variously being product advocates, sockpuppet accounts, or single topic editors. On the other hand, Rhode Island Red's arguments seem to me have devolved into a need to push a specific agenda even in the face of the relevant sources. In short, both sides seem biased to the other side and assumptions of good faith have been significantly strained.

I hope you will take the time to read the whole discussion. For more context, you should also probably look at the New structure subsection of the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

So far, I have only tried talk-page discussion, but there has been a lot of it.

A couple other editors piped in briefly, but none have stuck around for the continuing discussion to help establish consensus.

How do you think we can help?

Because both sides seem biased to the other side, I hope the opinions and arguments of a disinterested party or two could help one or both sides to compromise more. Ideally, the disinterested party would stick around to push for a consensus.

Summary of dispute by Rhode Island Red

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

This dispute began when CircularReason (talk · contribs) (arguably an WP:SPA), appeared on the TPG making sweeping assertions that the article was biased against Young Living. The editor posted what appeared to be a COI disclosure, [25] Upon discussion on the TPG, the suggestion that the article was biased amounted to nothing. Curiously, Alweth (talk · contribs), a WP:SLEEPER, awoke from a 5-year slumber[26] and appeared on the TPG with the purpose of “addressing CircularReason's concerns about negative bias”.[27] Despite extensive discussion, this too amounted to nothing. Suddenly, Bilby (talk · contribs) appeared out of nowhere on the TPG (neither Alweth, CircularReason, or Bilby had any history editing the article, while 3 other opposing veteran editors -- Zefr (talk · contribs), Grayfell (talk · contribs), and me -- all had a considerable editing history on it) and Bilby proceeded to argue for inclusion of qualifiers (weasel wording) based on his/her reinterpretation about the company’s FDA violations based on a WP:PRIMARY source.[28]

The original text in the article about the FDA Warning (cited in full below in the discussion section of this DR) was entirely consistent with what a plethora of secondary sources wrote about the event (see details below in discussion section of this DR). Despite that fact (pointed out repeatedly on TPG), Alweth and Bilby, through WP:EXHAUST continued to argue that the original text was misleading. They argued that the text should be modified so as to state, essentially, that the FDA notification was directed at the company’s distributors rather than the company itself, which is untrue in law and fact, as well as inconsistent with what the sources stated. The original text was accurate, POV balanced, and in no way inconsistent with the sources. It was neutral and unobjectionable. As a side note, the multi-level marketing MLM business model has been widely criticized for precisely the fact that MLM companies (like Young Living) purposely use their vast distributor networks to make illegal//unauthorized marketing claims from which the company can attempt to distance itself by denying direct culpability (which is a clear dodge and a distinction that the FDA does not recognize) Bilby went so far as to argue that the article’s coverage of the FDA notification was “misleading”[29] and “incorrect”[30] because it didn’t sufficiently shift the focus/blame to the actions of the distributors rather than the company’s responsibility. However, these assertions were proven to be off-base, as multiple sources back up the original text (quotes below in the discussion section of this DR):

After losing their main argument, the two editors in question retreated to arguing that the company’s response to the FDA warning had to be included. At this point, after backsliding to this much smaller quibble, their relentless arguing was starting to become WP:TE. Their complaints were not ignored but were simply proven invalid. But the explanations fell on deaf ears.

In the interest of reaching a fair resolution, I proposed including a line of text indicating that the company had agreed to take the remedial action ordered by the FDA. However, I was lukewarm on the idea given that the company had no real choice but to comply, and saying that they did so seemed rather like a statement that’s not particularly relevant to an encyclopedia. Nonetheless, Alweth agreed with the proposed inclusion and, essentially, Bilby did as well. Subsequently a line of text along the lines of what I proposed was added by Bilby (since modified slightly for more balanced POV and consistency with sources), which should have put an end to the dispute. Despite all of this, Alweth inexplicably launched this DR, eating up even more resources through WP:EXHAUST. For now, the dispute seems to be non-existent, but concerns about WP:SPA, WP:SLEEPER, WP:TAGTEAM, and WP:COI linger. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bilby

The problem we are having is that the FDA letter sent to Young Living made two claims. One was that young Living were mislabeling their products, while the other was that Young Living's consultants (their marketers, or distributors) were advertising their products as being able to cure diseases such as Ebola. Some sources, like the Inquistr and the Wall Street Journal, are clear about this distinction. However, some sources don't make the distinction, and accuse Young living of both. So we ended up with different claims in secondary sources.

The FDA letter leads with the statement "This is to advise you that in August 2014 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed websites and social media accounts (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest) for several Young Living essential oil consultants that your firm refers to as 'Young Living distributors'", and then states, later in the letter, "Your consultants promote many of your Young Living Essential Oil Products for conditions such as, but not limited to, viral infections (including ebola), Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis, that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners" [31]. Young Living responded by saying that they would be working with their consultants to fix the issue.

The distinction became important for two reasons. First, a second company, doTerra, who received warnings from the FDA at the same time. (doTerra were also warned for not preventing their consultants from marketing their products as cures for Ebola and other diseases). This action by the FDA placed an additional responsibility on the two companies, as it made them responsible for the actions of their (thousands) of distributors, and there have been articles discussing this impact in regard to doTerra, just not as much in regard to Young Living. The second reason is what caught my initial attention, because very rarely do companies of this size make the mistake of claiming that their products can cure disease, as their legal teams prevent errors of that scale. They are well aware of the need to post disclaimers and avoid making specific untested health claims.

At the moment, Rhode Island Red wants to use sources that place all the blame on Young Living, while I would like to use the sources that appear to me to be more consistent with the FDA letter. It is possible to produce sources to make either claim. - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Aside from JzG

In addition to the accurate and succinct statement by Rhode Isalnd Red above, I'd note the content of the FDA letter:

You market your Young Living Essential Oil products through paid consultants; your compensation plan for your consultants is explained on your website www.youngliving.com/en_US/opportunity/compensation-plan. Your consultants promote many of your Young Living Essential Oil Products for conditions such as, but not limited to, viral infections (including ebola), Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis, that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners. Consumers interested in your Young Living Essential Oil products are then redirected by your consultants to your website, http://www.youngliving.com, to purchase your products and/or register as members (i.e., consultants).[1]

The FDA absolutely and explicitly makes the link between the fraudulent claims, and the company.

There is relevant case law, for example:

• Kugler v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 120 N.J. Super. 216, 293 A.2d 682 (Ch. Div. 1972) – Manufacturer, operating a multi-level distribution system, could not avoid liability for misrepresentations made by distributors by arguing that distributors were independent agents.
• Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Equinox Int’l Corp., CV-S-990969JBR(RLH), 1999 WL 1425373 (D. Nev. Sept. 14, 1999) – Defendant could not “shield itself from liability merely by arguing that current misrepresentations are made by independent contractors.”

Of course we don't rely on our own reading of the facts, we follow the secondary sources, which are as RIR says, but underlying that is the legal position which seems pretty clearly to support the statements the sources are making. We are under no obligation to be deferential to representatives of these pyramid schemes, Guy (Help!) 00:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Young Living#Prohibited_marketing_claims discussion

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

Since this discussion, which should have been minimal, is already lengthy, it can continue inside the curtains. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

As referenced above in my opening statement, These are the original blocks of text in the article that pertain to the FDA notice of violation: (LEAD) “In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against illegally marketing its products as treatments or cures for Ebola virus,[5][6][7] and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis."[8][9][10]” (BODY) “In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against illegally marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus,[5][6][7] and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis."[8][10][9] The letter named specific essential oil products "promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs under section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B)], because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease."[9] The warning further stated that the marketing and distribution of these essential oil products as drugs by Young Living without FDA approval are violations of the Act.[9][24]“ Relevant quotes from secondary sources establishing the company’s direct culpability are as follows: “The agency has issued warning letters to three separate companies that are marketing Ebola cures, demanding that they cease the sale of their products. The letters were sent to the Natural Solutions Foundation in New Jersey, as well as dōTERRA International LLC and Young Living, both based out of Utah. According to the letters, the companies’ websites all make claims that their products are therapeutic, but none is FDA-approved. That puts the companies in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”[32] “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to three privately held companies marketing treatments that claim to prevent or treat Ebola. The letters were sent to Newton, New Jersey-based Natural Solutions Foundation, Utah-based dōTERRA International LLC and Utah-based Young Living…The FDA said last month that it had become aware of products being sold online that fraudulently claim to prevent or treat Ebola. The warning letters followed a review of the companies’ websites and social media accounts promoting the sale of the products.”[33] “The FDA said both doTERRA and Young Living advertised some of their oils as "cures" for viral infections, including Ebola. The letter also stated the companies advertise oils as treatments for cancer, autism, and Alzheimer’s, among a lengthy list of other diseases.”[34] “Last fall, the FDA sent a warning letter to reprimand these false claims made by Natural Solutions Foundation, Young Living, and dōTERRA International LLC.”[35] “This week the FDA sent warning letters to three companies the government agency says are selling products over the Internet that claim to treat, prevent or even cure the deadly disease.”[36] “Young Living, based in Lehi, and doTERRA, based in Pleasant Grove, each had statements on their websites that many of their essential oil products can cure serious conditions including herpes, Alzheimer’s disease and cancer. A post on Young Living’s website states, “Ebola Virus cannot live in the presence of cinnamon bark (this is in Thieves) nor Oregano.” [37] “But the FDA issued the company a bureaucratic fatwa, noting that the health claims for their products “cause(s) them [the essential oils] to be drugs under section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B)], because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” And that was the real bad news for Young Living, because a drug has to be studied and claims verified…the health claims had to be removed…”[38] "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent letters to three companies this week, warning them against marketing their products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola. The letters, posted online on Wednesday, document multiple claims from the companies or their paid representatives that essential oils and other natural remedies can "help prevent your contracting the Ebola virus".[39] “Young Living’s CEO was reprimanded for more than just consultants’ claims. Young Living’s own website made claims that promoted products in such a way that the federal government would classify the products as drugs, according to the FDA.”[40] This was the addendum I proposed:[41] “A Young Living spokesperson subsequently announced that the company was taking action to correct its marketing practices." Alweth agreed with the proposed inclusion:[42] Bilby essentially agreeing with the proposal:[43] Bilby adding text based on the proposal:[44] My subsequent modification of text added by Bilby:[45] Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Just on that final claim, no, I didn't agree with your proposal. I added alternative wording which I felt was safe and would work as a compromise. Anyway, I guess the real issue is the sources. First, the FDA letter is here. In it, they say that they looked at both Young Living's own material and marketing material created by Young Living's consultants/distributors. In regard to the latter, they found: "Your consultants promote many of your Young Living Essential Oil Products for conditions such as, but not limited to, viral infections (including ebola), Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis, that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners." The FDA then list the specific violations that they found in the consultants' marketing materials, before discussing the labeling issues which Young Living is directly responsible for. There are two claims: 1. Young Living is mislabeling some of their products and suggesting that they are drugs, and 2. Young living's consultants are also advertising Young Living products as cures for speficic diseases. Currently we make both claims in the article: In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against illegally marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis." The warning further stated that the marketing and distribution of these essential oil products as drugs by Young Living without FDA approval are violations of the Act. In the first, we include part of the relevant quote from the FDA letter, but leave out the part which states that it was their consultants found to be doing this, placing the full responsibility on Young Living. Sources can be broken up into at least four groups (I've added some examples, but this isn't exhaustive): 1. Sources that discuss how the consultants have been incorrectly marketing the products as cures for disease: Boston Globe, Inquisitr, Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker. 2. Sources which are ambiguous, and could be read either way: CNN, Washington Post 3. Sources that say the Ebola claims are solely the responsibility of Young Living: Daily Beast, Rueters, Popular Science, Pharmacy Times 4. Sources which seem to make contradictory claims: Daily Herald Part of the problem is that in an MLM like Young Living, most of their marketing is handled by independent distributors, so it is possible (although potentially misleading) to describe the distributor's actions as "Young Living's marketing".Thus some sources do that, while others distinguish between the material produced by Young Living and the material by their distributors. The issue is not about apportioning blame - I'm not trying the remove responsibility from Young living. What I'd like to see is an accurate account, especially given the significance of holding MLM companies responsible for the marketing produced by their distributors, which we know has caused issues for their main rival, doTerra. It is always difficult when different sources make different claims. - Bilby (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Repeating from above for convenience. Kugler v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 120 N.J. Super. 216, 293 A.2d 682 (Ch. Div. 1972) – Manufacturer, operating a multi-level distribution system, could not avoid liability for misrepresentations made by distributors by arguing that distributors were independent agents. Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Equinox Int’l Corp., CV-S-990969JBR(RLH), 1999 WL 1425373 (D. Nev. Sept. 14, 1999) – Defendant could not “shield itself from liability merely by arguing that current misrepresentations are made by independent contractors.” See also the "harming customers" section of this paper. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC) Those sources are part of why it is significant that Young Living failed to properly police their distributors. That's why I'd like to make their responsibility in this clear. - Bilby (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC) To be clear, the change I am proposing is to alter: "In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against illegally marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis." To: In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living for failing to prevent their consultants from illegally marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis." Sourced to the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Boston Globe and the FDA letter as a primary source of the quote. I have no wish to remove blame from Young Living, just to correctly identify what they did wrong. - Bilby (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC) @Bilby: "In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living due to illegally marketing of products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis." Supported by 100% of the sources and removes the spurious ambiguity, since it's clearly their job to ensure it doesn't happen, whoever is making the claims. Also avoids the WP:WEASEL issue of casting this as rogue distributors, when multiple sources note that MLMs foster and actively support a culture whereby fraudulent claims are institutionalised. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC) Multiple sources also note that the problem was a failure to police the distributors, which, as you have pointed out, it was Young Living's responsibility to do. Being clear on this removes any ambiguity about what Young living was failing to do. - Bilby (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The filing party has notified one of the editors, but not all of the editors, and needs to notify the other listed editors. Any further discussion before the case is opened should be carried on inside the curtains. Overly long posts often serve no purpose other than to make the poster feel better. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Not quite true. I filed this request and notified both parties (beside myself) that I listed as being involved. Someone else added two more people who I did not include because they seemed to have dropped out of the discussion. Alweth (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

But I've gone ahead and notified the other members. Alweth (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• @DRN volunteers: - A moderator is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User talk:CordialGreenery

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by CordialGreenery on 09:52, 14 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:CordialGreenery (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MShabazz (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User Malik Shabazz repeatedly resulted in personal attacks when confronted with opposing viewpoints on an article. Accused me of not knowing how to read, called me "Dumbo", "Too proud or too stupid", and told me to "grow up". Generally aggressive behavior. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted to discuss in the talk page on disputed article. User ignored talk page and reverted without description. How do you think we can help? Address blatant uncivil and aggressive behavior from serial problem editor. Summary of dispute by MShabazz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:CordialGreenery discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The "Dumbo" remark[46] was a response to this"Shabby's non-constructive comment aside". When I blocked CordialGreenery for editwarring I told Malik "Malik, you shouldn't have responded on his talk page the way you did." This is moot at the moment as CordialGreenery has continued to editwar on the same article and I've blocked for 72 hours. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 14 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.

Talk:Neurodiversity#Criticism section

– New discussion.

Filed by Sleeplessbooks on 06:15, 17 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:Neurodiversity#Criticism section (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sleeplessbooks (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'm having trouble because user Ylevental appears to be making edits that are counterproductive -- but I don't have the kind of knowledge or experience with wikipedia to explain to them why it's a problem, or point them towards helpful resources that would help them understand the general rules of wikipedia. The last edit they made to the talk page was to literally archive everything, including active topics for discussion, and that doesn't really feel like something that should have happened.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I'm trying to point them towards resources on how to write better articles that involve better citations, avoid weasel words, etc. -- but periodically, they'll straight up vandalize a talk page or something, and I don't think they'll hear what I'm saying.

How do you think we can help?

I just need a more experienced wikipedia editor to come in, check things out, and offer some feedback that comes from a position of knowledge and experience. I've edited here and there, but don't have the tools to address this situation on my own.

Talk:Neurodiversity#Criticism section discussion

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

• Volunteer Comment - User:Sleeplessbooks - Please do not say that another editor is vandalizing a page unless they are vandalizing the page. The incorrect allegation of vandalism is a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. Sleeplessbooks (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Question - Is the filing party asking for moderated discussion in order to reach a compromise, or are they simply asking for another editor to look at the discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible for someone more experienced to look at the discussion and weigh in? Specifically, helping us to understand how Wikipedia's policies play into what's happening. User is archiving all conversation, and putting it in a place where -- if my understanding is correct -- we aren't supposed to be adding on to. It feels like there's an attempt to shut down conversation in ways that go against rules. That's why I'm asking for help. Sleeplessbooks (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Just want to point out that it seems that the real intention of Sleeplessbooks is to delete the criticism section entirely, which will most likely never happen Talk:Neurodiversity#Criticism. There are many reliable sources in this regard. Ylevental (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Question - Since both parties have commented, are the two parties interested in moderated discussion? If what is wanted is simply for a third editor to comment, then a Third Opinion should be used. If both parties want moderated discussion, we will request a moderator, Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. User:Ylevental is trying to game the system. The issue Sleeplessbooks is talking about is not the Neurotdiversity article itself. It's about Ylevental archiving the talk page way too soon, trying to hide the debate he had with Sleeplessbooks and hide any previous issues with the criticism section (which there were, and have since been acted upon). Ylevental has a history of not being held responsible for his promotional activity (hence his paranoid assumption here that this is about deleting the criticism section of the main article - diverting from the real issue). The archiving was indeed vandalism for what it's worth in my view for the reasons I explained. 2001:8003:58DD:C700:64C6:7BB2:D963:2A7D (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Beyond_My_Ken#BEN_SHAPIRO

– New discussion.

Filed by ImmortalWizard on 19:40, 18 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

• User talk:Beyond My Ken#BEN SHAPIRO (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ImmortalWizard (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Please look at the infobox caption of Ben Shapiro. There's a silly conflict going on here. Please resolve. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I left a message.

How do you think we can help?

Yes

User talk:Beyond_My_Ken#BEN_SHAPIRO discussion

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