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
Jessica Nabongo	New	Log6849129 (t)	2 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 4 hours	Valereee (t)	1 days, 20 hours
Neith	New	Potymkin (t)	2 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 10 hours
Existential risk studies	Closed	JoaquimCebuano (t)	15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	13 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, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

McLaren F1

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by U1Quattro on 19:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• McLaren F1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• U1Quattro (talk · contribs)
• Toasted Meter (talk · contribs)
• Drachentötbär (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an argument about the inclusion of the Dauer 962 surpassing the McLaren F1 mainly because it was proclaimed as the fastest production car in the world by Evo magazine. The same statement was used by a German automotive magazine Autobild some years later. Two editors on the talk page believe that what these magazines have said is true. There was an article posted in two talk page discussions from Evo magazine about the Dauer 962 in which the claim made earlier by the publication was not repeated. Yet the two editors would still take this fact as the main reason for the Dauer 962 to be included in the article.

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

[[1]], [[2]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By explaining a clear definition about the term production car and whether superlatives used to promote automobiles by magazines should be used as a reference on Wikipedia articles in the future.

Summary of dispute by Toasted Meter

Not sure why no one was notified of this. Anyways, I do not necessarily think those magazines are correct, I think that due to the definition of "production car" being so variable it is due to include this differing opinion from two leading automotive publications. U1Quattro seems convinced that Autobild is circularly reporting on what EVO wrote, I don't see any reason to think this is true, I also think it very unlikely that the dispute resolution noticeboard is going to create some authoritative definition of "production car". Toasted Meter (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Drachentötbär

It's about which car succeeded the McLaren F1 as fastest production car. Among the reliable sources there are three different opinions (each supported by several reliable sources). I want to mention all of them in a sentence like "Depending on the definition of production car it was succeeded by the Dauer 962, Koenigsegg CCR or the Bugatti Veyron" while U1Quattro posts one opinion as fact and ignores the rest which is unbalanced and contradicts the other sources. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

McLaren F1 discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - Since the other two editors have commented here, notifying them will not be necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I will try to moderate this dispute. Read and follow the rules. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Be civil and concise. Be civil. That is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Be concise. Overly long statements do not help communicate, even if they make the author of the long statement feel better. Comment on content, not contributors. The objective of this discussion is to improve an article, not to talk about editors. Now: Will each editor please state, concisely, what they think the issues are? I do not have knowledge of the subject area. I expect you to provide me with the knowledge. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

First statements by editors

Production car top speed records have been contentious long before Wikipedia came to be, with little consistency about what a production car is and what counts as a top speed record, take a look at Production car speed record#Difficulties with claims for all the odd minutia of why a car might not be considered the fastest by some even when others say it is. The definition of a production car has varied over the years, at Le Mans in 1993 the Automobile Club de l'Ouest (ACO) introduced the LM GT1 class which asked that 25 road going cars of the type be made but only required that one exist at the time of the race, in the end only 13 Dauer 962s were ever made, however it won the most prestigious endurance race as a production car. Skirting the "production car" line was not out of the ordinary at the time, the Toyota GT-One which came second in 1999 met the requirement to have space for a suitcase by somehow convincing the scrutineers that the fuel tank would fit a suitcase and so what if it there is no way to actually open the tank the rules don't say that you actually need to have a way to get it inside, it would fit if you could. The rules of the 2001 American Le Mans Series let the BMW M3 GTR compete in the GT class despite only three road cars being made and zero being sold, the rules were changed the next year to demand that 100 cars and 1000 engines be sold.

On Wikipedia defining the production car has been the subject of extensive discussion eventually leading to the definition used on the Production car speed record page.

Now this dispute is about the McLaren F1 page, the history of the McLaren F1's record is also interesting, the eventual top speed was tested as a two way average at VW's Ehra-Lessien test facility, the two way average is to cancel out wind and any slope in the track. It took a few runs to get to the top speed, in the early runs the car was not being limited by aerodynamic drag becoming so much that the power of the car was equal to the external forces and losses, the limiting factor was the maximum rpm of the motor, after the gear reduction the tires were spinning as fast as they could with the gearing and redline, this is called a gearing limited top speed. The standard car had a redline of 8,000 rpm, due to the lifespan of a bonded rubber vibration damper being reduced at higher speeds (probably also due to being an even number), in pursuit of a higher top speed the limiter was eventually raised to 8,300 rpm and a two way average top-speed of 386.7 km/h (240.3 mph) was achieved in March 1998, the modification was accepted by the publications of the time with Guinness World Records declaring it the world's fastest production car.

The Dauer's record is less well documented, the run happened in November 1998 again at Ehra-Lessien reaching 404.6 km/h (251.4 mph) in what may or may not be a unidirectional run.

The CCR was tested at the Nardò Ring a very large banked circular track and reached 387.87 km/h (241.01 mph) (unidirectional) in February 2005, 14 cars were made.

The specific content at issue is the inclusion of the Dauer, I and Drachentötbär think that two contemporaneous publications describing it as production car provide due weight for it's inclusion, not as definitely a production car but as something that went very fast and was described as production car by reliable sources. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The Dauer 962 was called a production car by Automobile Club de l'Ouest (ACO) regulations in 1994 but those regulations were changed, disqualifying the car from further competing anymore. However, Evo magazine took it to another level and straight away called it the "fastest production car" in the world. When asked for Evo about clarification, the current editor Stuart Gallagher was of the opinion that their publication had not been careful about using this term and on behalf of their publication they were happy to take back what they proclaimed as the author who used the term in their 2003 issue was not associated with the publication anymore. The relevant evidence was posted on the talk page. The publication reserves the right to have a say in wat they publish. It is not the authors. However, the two editors think otherwise. I also reached out to Auto Bild but due to the current situation caused by a global health crisis, they are not available to comment on this. After the disclaimer given by Evo, I have doubts that what Auto Bild has said should be given weight as they didn't use any justification when using a term which has long been a subject of disagreements over the years. It seems that Auto Bild has used it in a promotional sense just like Dauer was using it. Wikipedia also works on consensus and a proper definition was drafted after there was a consensus among editors as a result of a discussion in 2018 at the List of fastest production cars page. In the case of no specific definition, we should stick with the definition which has been agreed upon by a majority of editors related to automobile related subjects.02:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC) User:U1Quattro

Second statement by moderator

The first statement is not concise. The first statement is not concise. Please just tell me, in one paragraph, what statement or statements in the article are in question. I will ask for the explanation or justification if I think it is needed, but I want to know what one or two sentences in the article the dispute is about. Continue to be civil. Start being concise, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

Sorry about making it so long, I guess I took the giving information about the subject area too far.

This is about describing the Dauer as "Depending on the definition of "production car" a successor to the F1's record. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC) .

This is about adding the Dauer 962 as the car which succeeded the McLaren F1 as the fastest production car in the world. Two editors think that "we should not contradict reliable sources" when one of them has given a disclaimer and backed out of the proclamation they made years ago. This dispute is also about the definition of a production car of which a consesus based definition is available at the List of fastest production cars page.U¹ _quattro TALK 07:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Even within Wikipedia the definitions of production car differ. It's not our task to determine a self-made definition for the public to use, we should report according to reliable sources.

The definitions of production car differ among the reliable sources. For some the Dauer 962 is a production car, for some the CCR is, but not the Dauer and for others neither of them is a production car. This is why some reliable sources name the Dauer, some the CCR and others the Veyron as the F1's direct successor as fastest production car. Naming all three after "Depending on the definition of "production car"... is the best way to handle this.Drachentötbär (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think Guinness' definition should be used on this matter as it was Guinness who declared the F1 the fastest production car in 1998. The whole production speed record thing exists due to Guinness and their definition so it would make more sense if we used it rather than using sources who have used the term for promotional purposes.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

Is the disagreement about what car succeeded the McLaren F1 as the fastest production car? If so, can that statement be replaced by stating that this depends on the definition of production car? Can the disagreement be worked with a clarification about the definition of a production car? Will each editor please propose a wording that they think should resolve the concerns of the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

Sort of, none of the editors who want it included think the Dauer is the objective "rightful heir" just that with some sources saying it's a production car it's due to mention it among the other putative successors. I think the long standing (4 year) wording that includes the Dauer does a good job of noting that definitions have never been consistent and lets the sources do the defining. I can't think of a good disclaimer beyond what's there now, but I would be open to one. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the Dauer was mainly added with the intent to promote it rather than anything else. In my opinion, a clear definition of a production car upon which there is a general consensus at Wikipedia should be stated in sections related to production car speed records in articles so that we don't use promotional statements made by automotive publications as a source of misinformation. Long standing of information at Wikipedia doesn't necessary mean that its reliable, like the other editors involved in this dispute like to think, as seen in this famous discussion.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What car succeeded the McLaren F1 as the fastest production car depends on the definition of production car, the disagreement seems to be whether we list all three cars supported by reliable sources (including the Dauer) or not. That this depends on the definition of production car is already stated in the article. There is no definition of a production car upon which there is a general consensus at Wikipedia or in the media and I don't think there'll ever be. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator

Will each editor please propose a wording for the sentence in question? We can then try to piece together something that we agree on. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

Depending on the definition of "production car" the BMW-powered McLaren's record lasted until it was surpassed in November 1998 by the Dauer 962 Le Mans (404.6 km/h (251.4 mph) in Ehra-Lessien), in February 2005 by the Koenigsegg CCR (387.866 km/h (241.009 mph) in one direction at the Nardò Ring) or in April 2007 by the Bugatti Veyron (408.47 km/h (253.81 mph) in Ehra-Lessien). Drachentötbär (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Same as Drachentötbär. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Disagree with this wording and the thoughts of Drachentötbär, there was a general consensus reached at the List of fastest production cars page about the definition of production car and seeing that, a consensus can easily be reached once again about a general definition of production car at Wikipedia or we'd be stuck citing sources which used the term "production car" in promotional sense. The dispute was upon this wording and I'm against it being added again.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested wording by me: "According to the definition of production car for the List of fastest production cars, the F1's record lasted until it was surpassed in April 2007 by the Bugatti Veyron (408.47 km/h (253.81 mph) in Ehra-Lessien)."U¹ _quattro TALK 09:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator

If the article is about the McLaren F1, then can we say something vague, that what the fastest production car was after the McLaren is disputed but appears to reflect differences in definitions? This doesn't seem to be a major point in the article on the McLaren. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors

I agree with you that the dispute is not something even related to the McLaren F1. But as the dispute is about the which car succeeded the F1 as the world's fastest production car, I suggest that we use the mutually agreed definition at List of fastest production cars as this list has the proper agreed upon rules and procedures about what to classify and what not to classify at the world's fastest production car on Wikipedia (at least). When there is a page on Wikipedia which has agreed upon rules about the said topic under dispute, I believe we should give that preference over sources which use the term "production car" in a seemingly promotional sense with no logic or reasoning behind the term as proven by my conversation with the editor of Evo magazine.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's in fact not a major point in the article. Yet the sentence is informative and helps to understand the context better, I don't want to loose that information. I prefer the sentence to be based on reliable sources, not on the definition on one Wikipedia site which has changed several times and isn't source based. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator

Since there is a List of fastest production cars, shouldn't we be consistent with other articles in Wikipedia? If we are proposing that this article disagree with the List of fastest production cars, should we disagreeing instead about what is in that list? If there is disagreement, then how do we make the disagreement consistent in this article, where it is minor, and the list, where it is what the list is about? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors

I agree with using the definition in the list since it is that definition that pertains to the matter about which this dispute is about. Consensus should take precedence over what sources say which is not based on any logic or standard. The best way to resolve this dispute would be to make the article consistent with the definition in List of fastest production cars.U¹ _quattro TALK 00:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The List of fastest production cars is an original research site based on original research rules. The current list rules (the definition is "for the purposes of this list", not a general one) were made by a Koenigsegg employee, a freshly created account and 4 others against 3 opposing editors, not really consensual. Our wording is consistent with this wikisite, as well as with all the reliable sources. Drachentötbär (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus was reached in a proper manner on that definition. The employee admitted he is a related party and was pretty neutral throughout the discussion process. If you disagreed over there as well, it does not matter much. 4 yes vs 3 no is a consensus and the talkpage archive is a reminder of that. Plus, List of fastest production cars is not a site but a wikipedia page with an agreed upon definition about the subject matter of the dispute. I only see a misunderstanding of WP:OR here as well as other wikipedia policies. As stated on that very page, I would raise the possibility that declaring the Dauer "the fastest production car in the world" was a dubious claim by the manufacturer which was used by reliable sources in their reviews.U¹ _quattro TALK 23:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with the consensus that was reached on the list page, but it was a local consensus for the purpose of making the list. I think going by what reliable sources say is perfectly reasonable. Toasted Meter (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator

Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. There appear to be two viewpoints, one that the successor should be listed as the Bugatti Veyron to be consistent with the list of fastest cars, and the other that a different car should be listed here. If a different car should be listed here, should this page and the list be inconsistent, or should the list be changed? Please provide an answer both to what this article should say, and either to how consistency should be maintained in the encyclopedia, or why it should not. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion in the space labeled Seventh Statements. If you want to argue, argue in the space for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors

One viewpoint is that only the Bugatti Veyron should be listed as successor as in the list of fastest cars, the other is that all three cars mentioned by reliable sources should be listed. Listing only the Veyron would contradict reliable sources while listing all contradicts neither the reliable source nor the list site. There is no inconsistency between the list and this page so there's no need to change anything. Drachentötbär (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Going with all three cars contradicts the list and it makes the list inconsistent with what the articles say. As consensus was reached on the list, it should be given preference over what sources say. We shouldn't rely on sources which say things without logic or reason. An example of the said inconsistency us the Jaguar XJ220. On its article it says that it was the fastest car in the world til 1993 but on the List of fastest production cars, it is disqualified because the run was uni directional.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator

Why should this article contradict another article? If there are different reasonable views as to what the fastest production car was after the McLaren F1, why should the differences of opinion be presented in this article rather than in the list?

Why anyway is it worth having a content dispute in an article about the McLaren about a matter that isn't about the McLaren? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors

I support the consistency of the article with the List of fastest production cars page. It is not worth it to have a dispute about two cars whose record claims are disqualified in the List of fastest production cars page with the Dauer being promoted by superlative statements with no reasoning behind them contrary to what the others think and still refuse to accept.U¹ _quattro TALK 15:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that using the criteria for the list would be incorrect, it's a local consensus that allows the list to remain manageable, not an immutable truth. Sticking to reliable sources while not over stating them seems like the corect move, although I can see the point that the section might not make sense on the page.

If I were writing the page from scratch I don't think I would have written it the same way, you could probably remove the entire "Depending on the definition of" section leaving only the "As of 2017, the F1 remains the fastest naturally aspirated production car in the world as the cars who have surpassed it in terms of speed records use forced induction engines." section, that would get across that it has been surpassed. No clue if any other editors agree.

Industrial and organizational psychology

– New discussion.

Filed by Iss246 on 23:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Industrial and organizational psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Iss246 (talk · contribs)
• Sportstir (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
• Psyc12 (talk · contribs)
• Ohpres (talk · contribs)
• ‎Patriciamoorehead (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am a long-time contributor to WP with more than 12,000 edits. I regret that I approached the Noticeboad previously but did not follow through. I was hoping to work out a compromise. I wrote in the industrial and organizational (i/o) psychology entry that occupational health psychology (OHP) is partly descended from i/o psychology as well as health psychology and occupational medicine. The idea that one discipline contributes to the emergence of another discipline is found in many places in WP (e.g., health psychology's relation to clinical psychology). I used the appropriate citation to support what I wrote. User:sportstir almost daily reversed my edits until WP editor WhatamIdoing indicated that what I wrote was appropriate. Sportstir, then instead of eliminating my edits, modified my edits to make it seem as if OHP is wholly descended from i/o psychology and eliminated any reference to health psychology and occupational medicine. Such an edit gives a distorted picture.

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

Talk:Industrial_and_organizational_psychology, Talk:Occupational_stress

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Another neutral editor or other neutral editors could review the dispute and arrive at a decision we can abide by. I would like a decision regarding the dispute Sportstir and I have regarding occupational stress as well.

Summary of dispute by Sportstir

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

A bunch of editors all worked to appease Iss246's many demands that only his wording is acceptable. We all decided on the wording and developed consensus but Iss246 kept overturning the consensus and put his version back in against the consensus. Sportstir (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I've also noticed Iss246 plays tricks as well as creating new accounts like brand new editor Ophres that then suspiciously comes into the discussion to support Iss246. They have also lied about me following them. I have only encountered Iss246 at these couple of articles. My problem with Iss246 is not so much what he is adding, although there seems top be an agenda, but the way they bully other editors and demand only their wording be used and no one else can change it or add to it.

I would really like to hear from other editors like Psyc12. It is Psyc12's wording in both articles, not mine that Iss246 has an issue with. I repeat. I did not write the edits that Iss246 keeps reverting. They were written to appease Iss246' demands and to resolve the conflict and I just put their suggestions into the article. I admit this guy Iss246 has pissed me off and I'm really not invested in these topics but I saw him bully other editors to get his own way and play games to get anyone blocked who objects to any edits they make. I should have walked awy earlier and thought these issues had been resolved but 6 weeks later Iss246 came back to the article to go against the consensus. Sportstir (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir is now accusing me of playing a trick by creating a sockpuppet named Ophres. Not true. What goes around comes around. I think Sportstir is acting like the now-barred Mrm7171 (who went by other names too), another WP editor who also followed me around, undoing my edits. I think the more important matter is to get closure on the i/o psychology edits and the occupational stress edits. Iss246 (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing

I have two thoughts:

1. There seems to be some "territorial" behavior going on (not just on Wikipedia). Some people seem to feel like these related fields are in competition with each other, so some people from one field feel like they should downplay or avoid mentioning the competition. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to WP:Build the web between related articles (even between subjects much less closely related than this). If you are accustomed to "silo" thinking, then our methods of contextualizing and linking broadly probably do not come naturally.
2. It would probably be appropriate at this point for Sportstir to carefully think back and let us know if there might have been any previous accounts at the English Wikipedia, and especially whether any of them are blocked/banned. This whole discussion, and this whole effort, sounds very, very, very similar to the one that ended a couple of years ago with a series of CheckUser blocks. There is a process in such cases for getting permission to edit again, but creating another account and pushing the same problematic viewpoint isn't it.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

OHP is not in a rivalry with i/o psychology. I wanted to point out that OHP is descended from i/o psychology and two other fields. That is not a rivalry. I have a source for that fact.

Regarding the issue of a banned WP editor. Sportstir reminds me of the banned Mrm7171, who also shadowed me very closely. Iss246 (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing did you notice editor Ohpres who only joined Wikipedia with a brand new account and username to boost Iss246's version and then made identical edits and opinions to Iss246. Is that allowed? To create a new account in the middle of discussion and pretend it's a new editor? Is that allowed WhatamIdoing? Sportstir (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Psyc12

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

I am confused. I suggested a compromise that I hoped would resolve the conflict about the I-O Psychology article between ISS246 and Sportstir, and I thought we all agreed. PatriciaMoorhead actually made the edit. Today I see that the edit has been reverted and the article is back to the disputed way it was originally. I agreed with ISS246 that the article should link to the occupational health psychology (OHP) article with a brief mention, and I agreed with Sportstir that this is a tangential issue, and it is not worth going into detail about which disciplines led to OHP--that can be covered in the OHP article.

I suggested replacing

With the development of Karasek's demand-control model and the University of Michigan's person–environment fit model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]

With

The I-O concern with worker health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology (OHP). [Spector, P. E. (2016) Industrial and Organizational Psychology Research and Practice 7th Ed. Hoboken, NJPsyc12 (talk) 20

10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, I propose another compromise. It is in two parts. One part is in the i/o psychology entry and the other part is in the occupational stress entry.

1. In the i/o psychology entry, I propose to modify this sentence: "With the development of Karasek's demand-control model and the University of Michigan's person–environment fit model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]"

I would rewrite that sentence as follows: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]"

2. You wanted to place "particularly" in before "industrial and organizational psychology" in the following sentence: "A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology."

I wanted to avoid naming one discipline above all the others, which the word "particularly" would imply. Because I do not want readers to think that i/o psychology was the one preeminent field in research on job stress, I would leave the sentence without the word "particularly."

And then I turn to the opening sentence of the occupational stress entry: "Occupational stress is psychological stress related to one's job."

As you know, I tried to change the expression "psychological stress" to "psychological distress." I would not make the change.

The compromise allows both of us to get some of what we want. Iss246 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Iss246 this was the edit that Psyc12 made on 15 February as a compromise to appease you and we could all resolve this.[[3]] Psyc12 wrote "Restated to better reflect what sources said, while acknowledging prominence of IWO psychology" Please stop now falsely saying I was the one who made the edit and the wording "particularly" I just agreed. Psyc12 has again reiterated that position. Sportstir (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, it does not matter who made the edit. Singling out i/o as preeminently more important than OHP, ergonomics, human factors is not sourced. I am offering a compromise. Iss246 (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Iss246 the only editors who have commented here on actual content and us resolving this is you, me and Psyc12. I have gone with Psyc12's suggestions to appease you. However your compromise is virtually the same wording that you demanded of us before and you keep putting back in the article against consensus. This applies to both the articles we are discussing. What do you want to do here as you are the only editor who is supportive of your wording and I'm confused why it matters so much to you to be frank? I thought the wording Psyc12 suggested was perfectly good in both articles and well sourced too. Can I suggest letting this go? Sportstir (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sportstir, WhatamIdoing commented here too. Why don't you reach out to Psyc12. Ask Psyc12 to respond in more detail. I will reach out again to Ohpres and PatriciaMoorehead. We need more input. Iss246 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ohpres

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

I conduct research on occupational stress. I find iss246's edits to be balanced. I'm not sure I understand Sportstir's obstinacy. It is not controversial that Occupational Health Psychology emerged out of several disciplines/areas of research, including occupational medicine. What is so problematic with this observation in Sportstir's eyes? We should be able to find a solution rapidly.

Summary of dispute by ‎Patriciamoorehead

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

Industrial and organizational psychology discussion

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

• User:WhatamIdoing - Are you a principal in this dispute, or are you trying to resolve the dispute? If you are trying to mediate or moderate the dispute, you can be added to the list of volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Robert, I only know about this dispute because Iss246 requested a third opinion from me. I do wonder whether it would be more pointful to have a chat with the CUs at this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing and user:Robert McClenon, I would appreciate if you and some other WP editors intercede and help resolve the disagreement between Sportstir and me. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • User:WhatamIdoing - This is not SPI. If you think a CheckUser is needed, please file a sockpuppet investigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I am willing to try to moderate this dispute if the principal parties agree that they will accept me as the moderator. Please read the rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements make the author feel better, but do not make the other parties any better informed. Comment on content, not contributors. That means talk about what you agree or disagree about rather than who you disagree with. Respond to my questions in the section for statements by the editors. Do not respond to each other. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion when answering my questions. If you want to engage in back-and-forth discussion, do it in the box I have provided. I am not an expert on the subject matter, and do not intend to do research on the subject matter. It is up to you to provide me with any answers. Now: Each editor should state, in one paragraph, what they want either changed or left the same in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir and anyone else - Tell me what you do want, not what you don't want. Enter it in the section for your comments, not for my statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon, I apologize if I said this already, I accept you as a moderator of the dispute outlined here on the Noticeboard. Iss246 (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

First statements by editors

User:Robert McClenon, I would like a much shortened, last sentence in the section occupational health and well-being in the i/o psychology entry to read as follows: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine." I would also like the last sentence of the second paragraph of the occupational stress entry to read: "A number of disciplines are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology." Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There is not just myself who disagrees with Iss246's wording as at least three independent editors have commented on the talk pages. We have all made concessions and changes to make this editor Iss246 happy yet they still only demand their wording and ignore the reasoning editors have provided. At what point does an editor step away and accept consensus Robert McClenon? Sportstir (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

User:Iss246 has proposed a rewrite of the last paragraph of the Historical Overview. Is it correct then that the difference of opinion is that the other editors want the Historical Overview left as is? Is that the difference of opinion? If so, please explain, in one paragraph, why it should be changed as proposed, or why the change should not be made. If you disagree about something else, state what. Please be clear and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon, the other editors are not of one mind. WhatamIdoing and Ohpres agree with me. Psyc12 agrees with Sportstir. I only want two things. One is that the i/o entry notes that OHP is descended from i/o along with health psychology and occupational medicine, which I sourced. Sportstir wants to leave out health psychology and occupational medicine making it seem that OHP is wholly descended from i/o, which is wrong and would mislead readers.

Second (this was part of a compromise I offered Sportstir regarding the i/o edit), I would also like to strike the word "particularly," which Sportstir had modified the words "industrial and organizational psychology" in the the last sentence of the second paragraph of the occupational stress entry because the word "particularly," in the context in which Sportstir inserted it, made it seem as if i/o psychology plays the dominant role in research on occupational stress. The three papers Sportstir cited to justify using the word "particularly" do not give i/o psychology the dominant role. The dominant theories in occupational stress, the demand-control model (Karasek's theory) and the effort-reward imbalance model (Siegrist's theory) were developed by sociologists. A third, and almost as prominent theory of occupational stress, is conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll's), which was developed by a clinical psychologist. I am for small edits that are more consistent with our best estimate of what the truth is. I would like to add sociology as one of the disciplines concerned with occupational stress but I hesitate to do that while in the midst of a dispute with Sportstir. Iss246 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing did not agree with your wording Iss246 only that we could consider adding a comment about your area of work. The only editor who agreed was this brand new editor Ophres that started a new account in the middle of our discussions and then edited exactly the same way as Iss246. So there are at least 3 other editors who disagree with Iss246. Psyc12 also put the word "particularly" in the occupational stress article not me yet you try to make it seem as if I did. The current wording in the industrial organizational psychology article that the majority of editors apart from Iss246 was also written by Psyc12 but Iss246 tries to state it was mine.

This is Psyc12's edit and I agreed with it as a compromise to Iss246. IO psychology's concern with occupational health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology. The article is very long as it is. Weighing it down further with irrelevant material is not helpful. Sportstir (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion

.

.

List of_The_Joey_Bishop_Show_episodes#Season_3_(1963%E2%80%9364)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Entercontainment on 15:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute List of The Joey Bishop Show episodes#Season 3 (1963%E2%80%9364) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Entercontainment (talk · contribs) User:23.242.254.82 Dispute overview There is a dispute over the order of the Joey Bishop Show episodes, particularly in season three. 23.242.254.82 sites links to one source to claim his order is correct. I, Entercontainment, have listed multiple independent sources to prove my order is correct. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [4] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Somehow, we should be able to inform 23.242.254.82 that they are incorrect in their order of episodes and request them to stop replacing my correct version with theirs. Summary of dispute by Entercontainment 23.242.254.82 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of_The_Joey_Bishop_Show_episodes#Season_3_(1963%E2%80%9364) 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:The Federalist (website)

– 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 Slatersteven on 16:33, 8 May 2020 (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 Federalist (website) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Slatersteven (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A user is insisting that these two sources [[5]] [[6]] are "opinion pieces" as Neither "are newspapers". They are refusing to accept that (at the very least) the New Yorker is an RS for the claim that something is Corona Virus disinformation (the issue is this content [[7]]. Note also that the two disputed sources are not the only ones being sued in that section. References How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:The Federalist (website)#Budding edit war User talk:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!#Warning: disruptive editing How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Either me (and a couple of other users are right and JungerMan Chips Ahoy! needs to be told this or we are wrong and we do.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Talk:The Federalist (website) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Outside comment: Frankly, if the article hadn't been protected, I'd have supported a block or topic ban for JungerMan Chips Ahoy. There's no dispute to resolve here, it's a WP:1AM situation. Guy (help!) 17:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC) I was told to bring it here at ANI, I think its the wrong venue but who am I to argue?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC) I wouldn't support a block for JMCA, but I think they need a reminder that they are clearly wrong on this and it's time to accept the result, because the sources are basically iron clad here. This is simply a misunderstanding of how we use WP:ALLEGED language. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC) It is hardly WP:1AM when 3 editors support the other side. But I can see how simply blocking your oppostion and declaring vistory is easier. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Jungerman Chips Ahoy!, I think you need to indicate whose views you are reflecting when you insert the "alleged" language into the article re: the misinformation. From what I can tell, the sources seem to unanimously confirm that this website put out junk science/other bunk on COVID-19. If this is disputed in legitimate sources, those views can be represented, or if there is reason to believe that the characterization is false, but I'm not seeing either having been presented. It's not enough to dispute the reliability of one of the sources, Media Matters, because various others, including the NYT and WaPo, have affirmed the same thing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Agreed, and I will, but I think this is best done once this DR is open - per the notice above - "Please do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. If necessary, please continue to discuss on the article talk page." JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)  Volunteer note: This is not the appropriate venue for this dispute. This venue is for disputes where a consensus is hard to reach and an indepedent mediator is needed to establish one. Here, there is a consensus against JMCA, as he admits. He should cease trying to implement his preffered version, and instead, if he disagrees with the current consensus, file an WP:RFC (which is also a form of WP:DR). Without objection, I'll close this request. MrClog (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC); edited 18:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC) where exactly did I admit that there's consensus against my position? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC) I misread your earlier comment, striking. Regardless, there is consensus against you, and if you disagree, you should start an RFC. The problem here is that it is a yes/no question, and a non-binding DR process won't create a compromise. Besides that, there seem to be up to 10 editors involved, which makes a compromise even more difficult to reach. I will go ahead and start an RFC to get the process started. --MrClog (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Got it. I have no objection to closing this and starting an RfC. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2020 (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.

Michael Flynn

– New discussion.

Filed by 173.172.158.168 on 00:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Michael Flynn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Muboshgu: Korny O'Near :The 13th 4postle:: MelbourneStar (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The editors who can change the article refuse to consider any information other than information that paints Flynn in the worst light. Any suggestion that is other than left wing is rejected and is not allowed even though it is factual. I went through all references that are listed in the article and now that the information from the Impeachment hearings have finally been released, and officials who said one thing to the public, said just the opposite under oath. Also the article will not name Stefan Halper as a source of the FBI, who admitted lying about General Flynn. People who are reading the article should have the right to know who these "Secret" not secret sources are to make a determination whether the article is accurate.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Flynn

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Someone that can take over as overseer of the article. It is ran by liberals, Muboshgu has admitted to being liberal. This article exudes liberal POV on General Flynn, It is NOT balanced. It is not fair to only include references that spin against him when there is also a different interpretation to the same information. It should be balanced to get an ACCURATE article on him.

Summary of dispute by Muboshgu: Korny O'Near :The 13th 4postle:: MelbourneStar

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

Michael Flynn discussion

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