Talk:2015 Formula One World Championship/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

This project is a joke.

When the 2015 German GP takes place in Germany I expect personal apologies from each of you who are responsible for willingly lying to readers. You all should be ashamed. Eightball (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No-one is lieing. Show where anyone has said the race will NOT be held in Germany?

Explain to me why:

German Grand Prix - means it won't be held in Germany when by your own statement the German Grand Prix has never been held anywhere else and

German Grand Prix - means it will?

Please explain why that is? --Falcadore (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No wikipedia member whatsoever has such a standing that they merit personal apologies. If you intend to contribute and collaborate with other members constructively to improve this encyclopedia, you really need to drop your ego or you're going to keep getting involved in arguments. As pointed out by Falcadore and as has been repeated dozens of times in the above discussion and the DRN, we are not claiming that the race will not take place in Germany. You have filed a DRN in what was really a forumshopping manner and you've had the time to contribute to it, but for some reason you didn't. Multiple uninvolved parties considered the evidence presented by those involved in the dispute and came to the consensus what the encyclopedic way to represent the current situation is. You really need to learn the difference between the encyclopedic way and the news site scoop way. Tvx1 (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If anybody should be apologising for their behaviour, Eightball, it's you. You started out edit-warring, and you were very lucky not to get yourself blocked. You repeatedly failed to assume good faith, accusing multiple editors of lying and "malicious edits" on several occasions. You refused to acknowledge a consensus that was being built because you disliked it, and stated your intention to sit on the article and revert edits on sight (which you did, and in the process, you removed a valid, undisputed edit) and refused to participate in discussions. Then you went straight to DRN (rather than going to the F1 WikiProject or opening an RfC), which amounted to you lobbying to try and get changes passed by undermining other editors and abusing the dispute resolution process (which, once again, you did not take part in). In the end, the article was unnecessarily subject to full protection for ten days, and the reputation of the WikiProject has taken a beating. And you have the nerve to show up here demanding an apology. At the most recent Wikipedia convention, edit-warring was described as "editors battling to the death over increasingly-lower stakes", and this whole sorry episode epitomises that statement. The way you have conducted yourself was not appropriate, much less constructive. If this is the way you are going to continue to behave, then you have no business editing Wikipedia and the article would be better off without you. Rest assured that this entire mess has been archived, and if anything remotely resembling it happens again, we will go straight to ANI. Because if you can't straighten yourself out, the admins will not think twice about doing it for you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If it is your opinion that this project is a joke, there is one very simple solution - don't participate. And definitely don't come back here now that the full protection has been lifted when a dozen other editors willing to contribute like adults cleaned up the mess you made while you hid away. What you did was nothing short of troll-like behavior and you will not get an apology from anyone because of it. Twirlypen (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Can Szymonn04 be investigated as a sock puppet for Eightball? Twirlypen (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks unlikely, unless Eightball is fluent in Polish [1]. This guy looks like a non-English speaker who, according to that edit summary, thought he was adding something that people forgot to put in... Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And that particular edit adding something "people" had forgot was a space. Nothing more. Tvx1 (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

His edit summary was no doubt summarising his three edits together, in which he added the Nurburgring and the flag. I don't see a troublemaker there, I really don't. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's not make assumptions. The user has made the same edit of adding Nürburgring without an edit summary a total of six times. There is thus no guarantee that the edit summary on the edit of adding a space pertains to one of the aforementioned six edits. I don't think we have a troublemaker as such on our hands and I'm certainly not thinking sock puppet at all. But the fact is that trouble has been made and in the interest of the stability of the article and, as a result of that, our readers it is important that we put a halt to the string of reversions. Just ignoring it and leaving the user be won't really help. Assuming the actions are made in good faith, they're still not the right ones. Tvx1 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't class it as "trouble". I suggest a message in Polish, if anyone has those skills. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

So I put "dodałem tor jaki powinien być a nikt go nie napisał" (adding a space after some research on Wiktionary) and it translates to "I said what should be the path and no one wrote". Assuming "path" means "track" or "circuit", he is saying "this is what the circuit should be, which no one wrote". This is not a troublemaker, just a misunderstanding. I would be willing to write a message and put it through Google Translate, but if someone actually speaks Polish that'll be better. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't tell. It just seemed odd (and as it turned out, simply coincidental) that a redlinked user would start editing it as soon as Eightball voiced his displeasure with the consensus and outcome of the DRN. He did announce his intentions to disregard Wikipedia policies to keep his edit. Just don't want this to get locked again - I'm sure it'd be for even longer next time. Twirlypen (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked up his global contribs and found that he edited on the Polish WP's 2015 article on 26 November 2014, with the account being created the same day. Seems like he isn't a sockpuppet, but then I searched for Eightball's global contribs and guess what, I found Polish contributions. I then checked his logs on the Polish WP. Turns out Eightball is Polish. I think a trip to WP:SPI seems to be an appropriate response to this matter. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Minor note: I will not proceed to file the SPI until I have consensus that this is the best and correct thing to do. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems the user has made another unsourced edit [2] today, which was again reverted. On the sock puppet suspicions. I would like to point pour that Eightball has made only two contributions to Polish wikipedia in six years time. And they have made edits to german wikipedia as well. That's a bit thin evidence to conclusively state Eightball IS Polish. The only thing we can now fairly state is that Eightball understands a bit of Polish. I mean, I contribute mainly to en.wikipedia, but I'm not even from a country that has English as an official language. The only thing we could possibly do to find out whether these two users strem from the same place is requesting a WP:CheckUser request, but those can only be made as part of a SPI. On a side note, I had already filed a report for Szymonn's edit-warring. I'm not sure anymore how to deal with that anymore. Tvx1 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Lord. I'm not sure I know how to deal with it either. I'm willing to bet that English is Eightball's first language, but I'm reluctant to start making guesses beyond that. I suggest asking an admin or admins to give advice. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You might as well bet that my first language is English, which it isn't. :-) Anyways, I have already referred this to the administrators to ask for their help and it seems like progress is being made there. Tvx1 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems like Syzmonn04 might not be returning (at least for now). I won't post the SPI until he edits again, because admittedly the evidence is not completely clear cut, and any further edits may give more light on the issue. —Gyaro–Maguus— 13:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence I found this article. Maybe one of them might be able to help us write a message to Szymonn04? Tvx1 (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Mauricio Lambiris and the Spanish Wikipedia

This is somewhat related to the above point, but it needs a separate section. Recent edits have added a "Mauricio Lambiris" to the article as a Caterham driver, apparently based on his article on the Spanish version of Wikipedia, which was given as a source (my Spanish isn't great, so I am struggling to find anything that might have been used to justify his inclusion). Mauricio Lambiris appears to be an obscure second-tier touring car driver, but the more pertinent point is that Wikipedia—any version of it—is not a source. You can use external sources that you find on other versions of the site, but the site itself is not acceptable.

Also, Motosporteditor, can you please acknowledge that you understand these issues? Editors have repeatedly drawn your attention to issues like these, but you always ignore them. We need to know that you understand what is going on and why. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

As far is I can make up from the Spanish wiki, there is no mention whatsoever of him driving for Caterham there. So his inclusion was utter speculation. However, as far as I can see, Motosporteditor was not entering the Spanish wiki as source but rather as a wikilink because there is no English wiki article for that driver at the moment. That is still not good practice though. Tvx1 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That's very unusual, then. Speculative guesses usually add GP2 and FR3.5 drivers to the roster. Lambasis, as best I can tell, competes in a second-tier national touring car championship of no real distinction (his series doesn't have an English-language article) and Motosporteditor is a native English speaker. I'm curious to know how he made the connection, even if it is completely unusable in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any edits on the Spanish Wikipedia by that user, going as far back as March 2013. Further, it appears the editors there have taken care of it, removing Caterham altogether in the process. Twirlypen (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm mostly just trying to satisfy my own curiosity here. Most of these edits—like, say, adding Jolyon Palmer—are an educated guess. But Lambasis too obscure to fit that definition. Since ideas don't just form out of nothing, there has to have been some antecedent to it.

But at this point, it's a mystery that probably won't be solved. Mostly because it's a mystery that doesn't need to be solved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The articles vary wildly from language to language. The Spanish uses TV display names and has a table for tyre selection race to race. The French list career starts, points, and wins for the veteran drivers. Several list the Nurburgring and Korea International Circuit even though neither are confirmed by the FIA. The English one is enough of a handful. Twirlypen (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Car names/3 car teams

I'm currently on Google seeing if there's any information regarding the 2015 car names - I'm coming across a lot of recent (last week of November) chatter regarding some teams running 3 cars. Because I'm on a work computer, I cannot visit a lot of sports and automobile related internet content, so I can't open the links to see if anything of value is in them. Does anyone know if this is still up in the air? Twirlypen (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, there is a provision in the regulations that allows for three-car teams but it has to be activated. I'd hold off any mention until it is formalised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Friday Practice Drivers

At what point do we consider adding these to the table? Off the top of my head, I know that Susie Wolff is confirmed for Williams and Kevin Magnussen is confirmed for McLaren. Or do we just add them as they drive? Twirlypen (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Add as they drive. Sometimes drivers are designated as reserve drivers, but never actually sit behind the wheel. My feelings on the usefulness of this section are well-documented, but the one thing everyone agrees on is that a driver is not considered to have taken part in a Grand Prix meeting until sich time as they have taken to the circuit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that. Tvx1 (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Once more

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rather risk the start of yet another edit war on this topic, I thought I would find out what other people think first. Cybervoron has added a source http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/basicpage/file/20141205/2015IntSeries.pdf that lists the calenders for quite a few international series that the FIA are involved with. It does not however, include the calender for Formula 1. The list does include the calenders for GP2 & GP3 which does list the Nurburgring for the same weekend as the German Grand Prix. The other F1 support series, the Porsche Supercup, has that weekend as 'TBA'. Personally, I would prefer a source that directly relates to either the F1 calender, or the German Grand Prix itself. Any thoughts? JohnMcButts (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer the same. If the German Grand Prix were to move, GP2 and GP3 would move with it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The feeder series depend on the FIA calendar, not the other way around. Twirlypen (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. In fact, Cybervoron's reasoning is purely original research. Tvx1 (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that with that source and proper reasoning it is safe to say, that the German GP will take Place at the Nürburgring, but I still think it should remain TBA for the stupid reason, that this source does not include F1. I'm the oppinion the Page should reprent facts and unfortunatly, it is not fact "yet" that the German GP will take place on the Nürburgring. And as pointed out by some already, things can still happen. Sandrewadair (talk) 17:33. 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What's with the centre-align of the TBAs for Korea and Germany? All it does is draw attention to the way they are currently listed as TBA. We've already seen a lot of edits adding flags back in since the DRN; I think the centre-align of the TBAs will only encoyrage this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This was talked about in a previous discussion and there were no objections to the center-align for the TBAs. Twirlypen (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, all it does is draw attention to the fact that no venue is set. We have never done it before, and it has never been a problem. Look at the early builds of the 2012 season article, for example. We knew the USGP was returning, but we didn't know where it would be. We didn't need a centre-aligned "TBA" then, so I don't see why we need it now. Including it feels like a solution in search of a problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is no venue set. The agreement was that it drew the eye away from the "missing" flag and, at least in my opinion, it was more aesthetically pleasing. Of course, I'm open for it being further discussed though, if more people want to input their opinions. Twirlypen (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The dozens of edits we have had over the last week entering the "missing" flags clearly prove that left aligning emphasizes the blank spots for the flags and gives the impression that those flags are mistakenly missing. Just yesterday, there was an yet another edit [3] labeled added missing flags. All I wanted to do is to stabilize the article by drawing the attention away from a flag being "missing" and thus discourage them being added. The TBA's are supported by a citation and there is a clear explanation in the calendar changes section. I really don't see why center aligning would encourage editing. Tvx1 (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I enjoy how dozens of readers keep coming to the page, noticing the missing flag, and having no knowledge of your comically inept "consensus," simply add it back. Everyone is aware of the need for the flagicons except a very vocal minority of editors (who I still maintain are acting with intentional malice, though that's beside the point). That said, it makes me happy that readers think the missing flag is an accident, rather than an indication that the races may not be in Germany or Korea. They are smarter than you and refuse to be misled by your poor edits. Eightball (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd advise you assume good faith and not attack other editors with malicious accusations that have already been resolved with the mediation of about a dozen editors and administrators (which, you introduced and then made NO contribution towards). The flag discussion is closed. This discussion is about center or left alignment. Please keep your opinions on topic. Thank you. Twirlypen (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't we put the "TBA" and citation in the flag column? like this:

Round	Grand Prix	Nat.	Circuit	Date
4	Bahrain Grand Prix		Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir	19 April
5	Korean Grand Prix	TBA		3 May

References

This keeps the text with on the same side as the races, but removes the gap left by the flag. I suppose the other possibility is to add a wikinote. JohnMcButts (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that could actually make it worse, since it would directly connect the TBA with the flag. What we really need to do is to take the attention away from the flag. A wikinote, on the other hand, might not be a bad idea at all. Tvx1 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You're overthinking it. A TBA is just a TBA. --Falcadore (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Just keep it the way it is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you actually enjoy seeing all these edits to the article and having to revert them? The way it is causes problems. Stop ignoring that. We're trying to find a solution here. Tvx1 (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Casual editors don't realize we use flags for the venue, not the country. Having "TBA" right next to where the flag would go highlights that it's not there. Having a center-align TBA I feel makes it more established that nothing about the entire venue column is determined. Twirlypen (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. That's what I'm trying to point out at all the time. Tvx1 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But I think you're just drawing attention to it by showing it to be out of the ordinary. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

How can we be drawing attention to it but making the blank flag space not noticeable? Tvx1 (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's noticeable enough as is. There's no escaping that. But by keeping it consistent with the rest of the calendar, we at least minimise the extent to which it is noticeable. If we start changing the alignment, all we do is draw attention to it.

Look at this situation on its individual merits—how is it really any different to any other time when a race was scheduled without a venue. It's not. The only thing that happened here is that Eightball made an issue out of it. We should be editing based on what the article needs, not based on how to respond to a disruptive editor. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. And one thing an article needs is stability. And the current situation doesn't achieve that. It's currently too noticeable. When we center align one can't see the blank flag space at all. I really don't know how you can keep arguing that that makes it more noticeable at all. If I have to pick between left align or center align, I really think center align is the lesser of the two evils. Tvx1 (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

All it ends up with is a massive blank white space. We should keep the table as consistent as possible. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The "blank white space" is of equal size no matter if it's on the left or the center or the right or upside down. I understand you want consistency with previous seasons, but with most things in this project, the standards are fluid and sometimes things need updating. Also consider that it's not going to be TBA forever. Twirlypen (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, JohnMcButts, I don't want you feeling ignored with your suggestion. I feel putting it in place of the flag is counterproductive. Twirlypen (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"The "blank white space" is of equal size no matter if it's on the left or the center or the right or upside down."

If the TBA is centre-aligned, there is a massive blank white space. I feel that draws attention to itself, and that it doesn't fix anything. There have been plenty of instances in the past where races have been scheduled without a venue, and it has never been a problem. And while the standards of the project may be fluid, this is a change designed to head off Eightball first and fix the article second. And that's unnecessary, because if we're responding to Eightball, we're just giving him the attention that he wants. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We're not talking about the past, we're talking about the present. And our primary concern is no to head of Eightball. In fact, Eightball hasn't made any edits to the article at all since it was put under full protection. My only concern is to vastly reduce (if not stop entirely) the vast number of edits to "add missing flags" that happen every day. It's very obvious to everyone that something is unnecessarily emphasizing the blank flag spaces and thus encouraging these edits. Yet you utterly refuse to acknowledge that. Tvx1 (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I acknowledge it. I just think that centre-aligning the TBA will only draw attention to the lack of venues and encourage people to edit it, rather than dissuade them from it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We're not discussing the venues, we're discussing the flags. The current situation draws to much attention to the blank flag spaces. Tvx1 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

And centre-aligning it creates a massive white space, highlighting the absence of the flag and the venue. It's an unnecessary, cosmetic change that doesn't fix anything, but rather emphasises the problem that it is supposed to fix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I still don't get how the left align removes more "massive white space" than a center align. The entire column is labeled as "Venue" and as such, its entire contents are TBA. It should reflect that nothing about it (both venue AND flag) are undetermined. Twirlypen (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

And I still don't get how changing the alignment in any direction is going to reduce the number of people who add the flag icon back in. Most of the people adding the flag in are also adding venues in as well, since the it's the Nurburgring's turn to host the event as per the event-sharing arrangement, and KIC is the only Grade-1 circuit in Korea. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Most edits are entering only the flags without a venue. Removing the emphasis on that blank space will reduce that. The current situation has an even more massive white-space to the right of the TBA. Contrary to your assertion, center aligning doesn't create any additional whitespace, but merely shifts the whitespaces. I'm not thinking about cosmetics by an means. I'm concerned with the article's stability. Tvx1 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So request temporary protection until the end of the year to filter out IP editors, and keep on top of the article if registered users make those changes. Even with high activity in that section, the article is still remarkably stable; large sections are not being added and removed.

Changing the alignment isn't going to do anything. People will still see that there is no flag or venue attached and move to edit them in regardless of how they are aligned. So unless you can prove that changing the alignment will put an end to the problem, why expend time and energy trying to turn it into a solution? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, how can you say that this change won't help if you don't give it a chance? You're a smart person - I'm sure you can see our logic, just as I can see yours. Why not let the center-align go for a bit and see of it cuts down on the misinformed edits? It's not even an issue of misinformation. Can we at least agree to that? There's citations right next to each TBA. Twirlypen (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Because it's unnecessary. It's a solution looking for a problem to fix. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you think it is unnecessary. That doesn't mean it is unnecessary. And don't make any nonsense arguments about time and energy. It takes me a mere 30 10 seconds to re align the thing. Let's just take a look a the facts. You don't have any proof for your claim that center aligning makes it worse. We, on the other hand, have clear cut proof that left aligning causes editing [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. So you're stance amounts to nothing else than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I think Twirlypen has made a sensible proposal of trying it out and see if really causes more problems like you are so certain of. If it does, we can always revert to the previous situation. That would take two sets of 30 10 seconds. That's not such a drama is it now? Tvx1 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

All I ask is that you prove that your changes will do what you say they will before you make them.

Also, stay off my talk page, please. You had no business entering that discussion, or trying to draw it to the attention of an admin, considering that someone had already addressed it. All you did was undermine the first admin. What happens elsewhere has no bearing on this discussion, and I find it suspicious that as soon as I oppose you here, you're trying to revive unrelated issues that have nothing to do with you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Any user has any right to make a comment there. You cannot forbid anyone to do so. All I wanted to do is to make a positive criticism to make you learn that there is no legitimate reason for edit-warring. Yet, you immediately have to consider this as a personal attack towards you, because apparently WP:AGF doesn't mean anything to you at all. Doesn't having been blocked thrice in just over a month still make you realize that edit-warring is utterly intolerable even if you think you are right? And really, stop this pathetic accusations. It's been 18 days since we first disagreed on this, so there is no "as soon as" edit by any means. Now, back to the topic. How can we physically prove the value of our change if you don't even allow us to try this out? Furthermore, why do we need to prove this to you personally anyway? We don't need you personal approval for this change to be made. This isn't your article. Tvx1 (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Arguable assertions must be supported by concrete evidence. You claim that changing the alignment will cut down on disruptive edits. I think that's arguable, so I would like some proof of what you say.

As for my talk page, please cease and desist. You were not involved in that dispute, so quite why you feel the need to make it your business remains a mystery to me. If you continue to behave as you have been, I will consider it to be harassment and I will refer you to the administrators.

Also, it's quite hypocritical of you to lecture me on edit-warring when you are edit-warring both here and on my talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not harassing you by any means, nor am I trying to make this "my business". I'm trying to point out to you that edit warring is not legitimate in any circumstances and providing you with a list of mechanisms available to deal with disruptive users as advice from one seasoned user to another seasoned users, because I'd hate to see an well-seasoned user getting themself banned. And somehow you see that as WP:Harassment??? But it you really want to be remain stubborn and keep edit-warring until you get yourself indefblocked, suit yourself. I won't mourn about it. Now, you can really like wat you want, but we don't have to provide any proof of this to you personally at all. You're a not the one that decides which edits happen or not anyway. Collaborate with your fellow contributors instead of bossing them around and sending them on unfulfillable errands. Tvx1 (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Strange that you would assume that this is "unfulfillable". All you have to do is find a previous example where formatting changes reduced the amount of disruptive editing. Not necessarily in this article, of course, but one where you can demonstrate a clear relationship between the two.

I also find it odd that you have been lobbying for this change, but not for other, similar changes in high-traffic areas of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There has been no previous example of this exact same alignment change and you know it. That's why I mentioned this as directly unfulfillable. That's why Twirlypen and I proposed to implement it and wait and see. And please explain why you don't have to prove at all that leaving it as is is indisputably better. It's really a minor edit, so why do you keep acting like this will certainly have dramatic consequences for the article.

If there are other sections that are currently prone to high activity disruptive editing which could be reduced, than please bring them up here. That way we can look at them and see if there is way to improve the article. That's what contributing to Wikipedia should be about. Tvx1 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It has never been an issue until now. And it was only an issue this time because Eightball kicked up a stink about it. There was no problem in 2009 or 2012 when the British and USGPs were scheduled without a venue. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about Eightball. My concern are all the other editors (thus excluding Eightball), IP's and registered, who have edited this section over the last few days. Tvx1 (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

First, even with lots of editing there, it is very manageable and highly stable—it's not like we are seeing thousands of characters being added and subtracted at a time.

Secondly, the McLaren driver line-up has seen much more edit traffic, but you're not doing anything like this there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well there is nothing much we can do regarding the McLaren lineup. A wikinote might help somewhat, perhaps? Tvx1 (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's unnecessary. And do you know why? It's because it's manageable. In the same way that this is manageable. Like I said, yours is a solution that is looking for a problem, and I fail to see the logic in how you can divert attention away from the white space by making the white space bigger. Once again, we find ourselves in a situation where I can take all of your arguments and use them to disprove your standpoint. You say it's a case of IDONTLIKEIT; I says yours is ILIKEIT. You say you're under no obligation to to prove that it will work; I say that I'm under no obligation to prove that it won't. All I have to do is maintain the same minimum standard of proof that you do, and we're once again in a stalemate. But we both know that if our positions were reversed, you would be demanding evidence without feeling the need to present it. You did it in the Sirotkin dispute, the numbers episode and the local names debate, and you're doing it here. You don't need to show cause for your edits, but you expect it if everyone else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

We have made it clear time and time again. Because balancing the white space left and right diverts the attention away because the white space no longer looks like a rectangle exactly the shape of a flagicon. I really don't see why you have to make such a life or death drama out of a stupid alignment issue. I really don't. This simply ridiculous. Tvx1 (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you have said that's what it does. You haven't demonstrated that it will work. They are two different things. And I fail to see who the "we" in all of this is, since the last time I looked, Twirlypen was arguing in favour of a left alignment, not a centre alignment.

As for diverting attention away from the white space, I fail to see the logic in diverting attention away from it by making it bigger. Because the net result is that you have just made it bigger. All that us going to do is make people think "hey, there's no flag or venue here - I should add one in". I can see what you're trying to do. I just think that you have completely failed in it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, at no point did I ever argue in favor of a left alignment. I have been in favor of the center-align since the end of the DRN because A) it makes the vacant flag space less obvious, and B) it just looks better overall. I'm the one that expanded the acronyms in a vain attempt to please both parties, since even I know that a 2-1 outcome is hardly a consensus. You're always advocating patience, so allow me to respectfully request you show some and see if it will cut down on misinformed edits. I do realize that it's going to happen less anyway because the page is now semi-protected. Twirlypen (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Prisonermonkeys, I really don't see how you can think Twirlypen is advocating left-alignemnt. At no point have they advocated that. That's pure nonsense.

Do your really want me to make a drawing of this. We are drawing attention away because we no longer unnecessarily emphasize a white space that looks exactly like a flag should be entered there. The white space is balanced out around the text. There is no visual cue of the outlines of a flag, just some text nicely centered in the cell. We are not making whitespace bigger. The amount of whitespace present in those cells is exactly the same amount now matter how you align it. It's just divided differently around the text. How can you not see that? Except of you there is none else categorically opposing the change. Stop making such a drama of this! Tvx1 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your whole argument is predicated on the assumption that it will work. The problem is that in this universe, effect follows cause. You have convinced yourself that it will work for no other reason than because you want it to. I asked you to demonstrate evidence of this, evidence that you would demand of me were our positions reversed, but you refused, claiming that you didn't need to justify it. I also pointed out that if you want to stabilise the article, then an RFP is the way to go, but you never even bothered to address this. So once again, we find ourselves in a situation where you hold yourself to a different standard than you do everyone else. Your entire argument amounts to ILIKEIT. It's a disgusting, hypocritical approach, because you have vehemently opposed similar changes in the past and demanded compliance from everyone around you. Your entire "argument" amounts to "because I say so". But of course, you'll just parrot the same lines you always do.

So how about you demonstrate that you can work with others for once, rather than forcing others to work around you, and give over. Your arguments are weak, unfounded, driven by ego and are ultimately holding the entire project back. So prove me wrong and give over. Or dig in and prove me right. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd have a look in here to see what's been happening lately, and wow – every time I think this project has created the most trivial argument ever, dragging it out for days, you guys manage to trump it. I think a number of you need to step back and have a serious think about what these perpetual shitstorms over nothing are doing to the project. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Breton, I'd worked that out last month. —Gyaro–Maguus— 00:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Point taken ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, while I have my opinion on the issue, I've offered and implemented concessions for the sake of getting this over with... which seems to be working because these two are really just trading shots at each other instead of being productive over a simple issue. Whether it ultimately ends up left or center alignment, if it goes against my opinion, my heart isn't going to break over it. After all, as I've said, it's not going to be TBA forever. Also, would it have killed either of you to at least offer an opinion one way or the other on the issue instead of using this as a WP:FORUM so that we CAN achieve a consensus? Twirlypen (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys, You are being utterly pathetic. I said I don't have to prove anything to you personally and I stand by that. You want evidence? Since we center aligned over 24 hours ago, not a single such edit has been made to the section. It's not a lot of time yet, but it certainly isn't worse than your preferred style like you keep claiming. You accuse me of being able to work with others? We'll let me sum up the timeline of this alignment change proposal. I originally proposed on 22 November as some sort of compromise during the earlier flags dispute. You replied back then that it wasn't really necessary. After the dispute was successfully solved, I reposted my suggestion on 29 November with a full visual example of how the entire calendar would look like in both versions. I waited for days and seeing that there were no more objections raised and only a reply of support, by Twirlypen [17], I made the edit on 9 December (thus 10 days later) because more and more unsourced edits were made. gave our contributors time to give their opinion and when no more objections were raised I decide to be bold and make the edit. And almost instantaneously you revert an start this talk page drama. Now how is that not working with other from my side??? By the way, the article is currently under semi protection as I result of a request I made at WP:RPP. So that's another nonsense accusation you fired at me. You're the one who has gotten themselves blocked three times, not me. So don't go around accusing others of having an ego problem.

If you think you have the right to thrash me like that, I can make a similar statement. You're arguments are driven out of pure frustration, possibly due to having lost some arguments in the past. I really thought me agreeing with you on some point during the past month would have shown that I don't decide on an opinion based on the contributors. I don't see how an overblown argument over something trivial as aligning text holds an entire project back.

If have said twice now and will repeat it again, stop making such a ridiculous, pathetic drama over something so trivial. You're doing the project more damage than good.

@Bretonbanquet, I agree with you wholeheartedly. This an unnecessarily overblown drama and I would like no more than to step back from it. But, excuse me if let myself get carried away sometimes, I can't accept the sort of nonsense accusations, like the above ones, thrown at me and certainly not over such a trivial matter. Tvx1 (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"Since we center aligned over 24 hours ago, not a single such edit has been made to the section."

Please demonstrate that the stability of the article is a direct result of the changes in alignment, and not because of the following:

"By the way, the article is currently under semi protection as I result of a request I made at WP:RPP."

Given that the bulk of the changes were made by IP editors, your comments do send a bit of a mixed message. As for the likes of Cybervoron's edit, that was off the back of a legitimate source from the FIA.

Perhaps there is a simpler explanation in all of this—the text of the article said "the German Grand Prix is scheduled to return to the Nürburgring", and although its omission from the draft calendar was explained, the damage was done in the opening sentence, which did not match the entry in the table. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure Bretonbanquet's comments are directed at the both of us. You can agree with him and try to position yourself as the more-reasonable editor all you like—it does not exonerate you of your responsibility. Or do you think it is just a massive coincidence that you are a key player in yet another major disagreement over a trivial detail? I mean, once is an accident and twice is coincidence, but three times is a pattern. By my count, this is your sixth. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Just as much as coincidence as this is well over the tenth time you're a key player in an unnecessary drama. And many of those included debates were you kept refusing to admit your wrongness in the face of a (near-)unanimous disagreement with you. Tvx1 (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You keep telling yourself that. I'm not going to argue over how many issues there have been, much less which ones people agreed or disagreed with me on, since you have a very generous definition of what "disagreement" entails. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Both of you are no longer working towards the topic at hand at all. Please stop this. Twirlypen (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Love to oblige! Twirlypen, do you have an idea how can provide mathematical proof of the correlation between realligning and the apparent reduction in edits to the section for the past 48 hours, of course taking into account the instigation of semi-protection? Tvx1 (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's an absurd, time-consuming request, which basically amounts to WP:SPECULATION. What can be proven, disregarding the semi-protection which was instituted by a separate issue altogether, is not one autoconfirmed user has added the flags or venue since it was moved to the middle. Semi-protected or not, autoconfirmed users were doing this when it was obvious that a flag-shaped space was there. Twirlypen (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It's funny that you say demonstrating that those edits led to a decrease in disruptive edits is speculating, when you are yourselves speculating that without those edits, the disruptive editing would continue. There may have been a higher volume of edits from auto-confirmed users, but those edits came from a broad range of auto-confirmed users, several of whom have been inactive since a time before you implemented those edits. Hence, your entire argument is built upon the logical fallacy that correlation implies causation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is why you should give it some time to allow us to prove this. Has it been worse this way? No! So please let some time pass so that we can have more clear view of the effect. What is your problem with the concept of patience? Some people have non-wikipedia lives to live, you know. Tvx1 (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't and haven't said they would continue, as that would be speculating. I can however say that they've stopped, which can be proven by taking a little peek at the revision history - and thus is not speculation. In fact, it makes your accusation that this has actually failed pretty absurd. Twirlypen (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

All you can prove is that it has stopped. You cannot prove why this might be the case, or whether the trend will continue. Look at the Alonso-McLaren situation: the article went through phases where Alonso was added, and phases where the article was stable. Maybe it was stable because regular editors informed those IP editors of the standard needed. But maybe it was stable because those IP editors logged off and didn't think twice. The article history doesn't say which—it only demonstrates the effects. That's why your argument is based on a logical fallacy: you have seen that the edits were introduced and that the article has become stable, and gave concluded that because they happened at around the same time, one caused the other.

Answer me this: if we removed the centre alignment right now, how do you know that the article will become unstable? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Because with a left alignment, there was a flag gap. People saw this and added it. There's no such gap with the center align. Your only argument against it was that it "created a massive white space," which by the way is physically impossible - it only shifted the existing white space. It did not create more of it no matter how much you say it does. However, once I corrected that, you shifted your argument to one that basically amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your reply to that was that our argument was nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT, even though we have demonstrated over and over the reasoning behind it. So you make outlandish demands to prove that our moving the TBA cut down on the disruption. You do not own this page and no one, not one other editor has voiced against the move. I don't understand it - you were so quick to accept consensus on the Nico Hülkenberg paragraph, but this is where you make a stand? Two in a row is a deal-breaker? Twirlypen (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You're making the assumption that they added the flag because they saw the gap. And you're also making the assumption that they have stopped adding the flag because the size of the gap has changed. But you don't offer anything to support those assumptions. All you can demonstrate is that the disruptive editing has stopped. You have nothing to show why it stopped. You're treating the effect as if it is also the cause, which is untrue.

And that's my issue with your argument. You have announced that "the disruptive editing has stopped because of these changes". I then ask you to demonstrate that—that the disruptive editing stopped because of those changes and only because of those changes. You then reply with "the disruptive editing has stopped because of these changes". But that's not true; the disruptive editing has stopped for 24 hours, but we went through periods of more than 24 hours without a disruptive edit before those changes were made. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I already explained that it was impossible to prove that since the article is semi-protected. Which is of course why you're using that as the cornerstone of your argument. What does it matter? Seriously? And no, I never once said that moving it to the center was the sole reason. Could there be other factors? Of course - namely the semi-protection, but user activity could also play a role. Regardless, it's working. There's no massive white space and the edits have stopped. You just want it back to the way you like it, without presenting any argument as to why other than it's the way you like it. Twirlypen (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You just said that "there could be other factors" but that "it (the edit) is working". It's either one or the other. Not both. Because if those other factors are the reason why individuals have stopped editing, then how can you claim that the edit is the reason why people have stopped editing? They're not mutually exclusive, but you're trying to make out that they are mutually inclusive, which you just said is not true.

You keep dragging up ILIKEIT as an argument against my position, so I will tell you what I like. I like solutions to problems that improve the page. I like solutions to problems that we can use again because we can demonstrate that they are of value. But you haven't demonstrated that at all. All you have demonstrated is that you think that it might be working, but rather than show that you know it is working, your entire argument has amounted to shouting out "WE'RE RIGHT!!!!" over and over again.

If you wish to make a claim that a particular edit has had a specific effect, then I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect that you demonstrate that your claims are true. I don't think anyone would think that is unreasonable. So right now, you can either demonstrate that the claim is true, or, failing that, you can stop making the claim. You cannot have it both ways. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) None of us have the goal of proving were right. We all want to improve the article. So prove that we have made this article worse or stop making such an unnecessary drama out of this. Tvx1 (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You know nice and well that such proof doesn't exist since the semi-protection - again which is why you'ce camped out on that since the day it went into protection. Before it was protected, it was "the massive white space created." It's clear from the various arguments that you cannot be pleased when it comes to something that either A) you didn't think of first, or B) goes against something you did think of, like the Vergne sentence back in October when it was obvious that STR was reconsidering him (with sources!) - to the point that you boldly claimed that STR's team principal has no standing with the team to make such comments just so you could keep your outdated edit.

So go ahead and put it back left. I've said that my heart won't break one way or the other - it's clear and borderline WP:COMMONSENSE that removing a flag-sized blank space can only improve the article and in no way will cause anything detrimental, but it's obvious that you cannot be reasoned with. Don't be surprised if edits pick up though and good luck arguing that it has nothing to do with the alignment. Twirlypen (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

And certainly no one is obliged to provide you proof or justification for an edit you disagree with - especially so if you're the only editor asking for it. Twirlypen (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Even more so since this is not about adding or removing content with(out) inadequate sources. Tvx1 (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Since when is it okay to say "these edits will do this" and then follow it up with "but I don't have to prove it if I don't feel like it"? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Since, except for one user who demands personal justification, no one has objected in 14 days. Tvx1 (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Since, are you sitting down, you don't own the Formula One project or this article. Proof isn't required if out of dozens of editors, only one stubborn person demands it - that's when it's okay. Nobody needs to justify the movement of content at your command only. Get off the high horse. We formed a consensus, albeit with only 2 people involved, but with absolutely ZERO objection at the conclusion of the DRN when everyone was at their most active. You only jumped in after the fact 10 days later when it was actually implimented. Twirlypen (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, two of the examples of ownership behavior presented in that policy litteraly are: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout" and "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental". Tvx1 (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Funny how they apply to you in equal measure. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I know you're not talking about me with that, because I have never shown such traits. Don't throw stones in glass houses. Twirlypen (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither do they apply to me, in truth. I have NOT started to dispute making this change. Tvx1 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The first three actions plus the quote "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all" apply, plus more that I'm sure is unsaid regarding consensus. See, now I've gotten sucked into being off-topic. The article was not harmed in any way in moving it to the center-align, and 95% of this entire section is Prisonermonkeys demanding justification so that they can "authorize" the change without providing anything substantial to argue why it should remain the way it was. Twirlypen (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? That's the argument you want to make? You're disputing a formatting change, then you say "disputing a formatting change is a hallmark of OWN", and then you play dumb about it? You're asserting that the current version of the format dissuades disruptive editing, but refuse to provide any evidence of it doing what you say it does so all we have is your say-so that it is working even though you admit the page stability might be down to something else. So if you're not disputing the validity of the previous format, what are you doing? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Quite simply, we are trying something different to see if it will work, and for suspicious reasons, you don't like it and are the only one making a massive stink about it. Consensus was made 2 weeks ago. Plenty of other editors had the chance and the time (we waited 10 days to actually change it) to voice their concerns - most didn't because they can see that this is really the biggest non-issue and don't persistantly show ownership traits. In other words, that ship has sailed. Ask for proof all you want - you're not getting it. Twirlypen (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No, YOU are disputing the change. We have no problem with it. Nor does anybody else so far. As Twirlypen correctly states, we're trying something else without destroying the page and thus far it has not proven to be worse at all. Oh and by the way, the two examples from the past you provided a while back are useless. The one from 2009 dates to time where our flags were still in the Grand Prix column and this was not an issue yet when a venue was TBA, and the 2012 example is incorrect because at no point there was a in the US venue's cell. Straight away when the USGP was added to our list a location (Austin, Texas) was provided with a circuit TBA between brackets. Tvx1 (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you know what I have noticed?

That you two are awfully quick to throw the likes of OWN and ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT around whenever you feel that someone disagrees with you past the point where you feel there are no more arguments to be made.

There are two problems with this. First, you assume that you know what someone else is thinking. You do not. It's a complete failure of AGF to start throwing those accusations around.

Secondly, you never consider any alternative to the problem other than the one you decide on. You make up your mind early on, and if anybody disagrees with you, then they clearly think that they OWN the article. Editors then need to move heaven and earth to get simple changes approved. Why do you think I am the only one opposing this? It's because other editors know that you are impossible to deal with. The only reason I am here is because I know that if I leave you to your own devices, Sergey Sirotkin will still be in the article, the team and driver table will be arranged based on old WCC standings, the calendar will be flooded with race titles in multiple languages, and the prose will be plagiarised. Can you really claim that you have exercised good judgement in the past?

Be very careful where you go with this. Don't you dare make the mistake of presuming to know what someone else is thinking at any given moment. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody disagreed with us until you did 10 days later. You weren't blocked. And as far as AGF and "throwing around ownership and ilikeit accusations," dig a little and you'll see a pattern that they really only ever apply to you. You've already begun to show ownership on the MP4-30 article with your very first revert summary. Twirlypen (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that you advocated including Sergey Sirotkin as well. Tvx1 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, people, calm down. The "To be announced", written in whole words like it is currently, is as far as I am concerned, the best way to leave it, as the whole words need to be centre-aligned for it to look professional in my eyes, so your discussion regarding centre-alignment can stop. We can also stop the petty arguing of who violating what guidelines and policies, because there is literally nothing as unproductive, and just stick with what is currently there as of now. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Finally other party has given their opinion. Thanks. Tvx1 (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

To be blunt, I stopped caring about the exact positioning of the TBA days ago. What bothers me is the way Tvx1 and Twirlypen have taken to making edits based on an assumption that they refuse to prove. You cannot say "I did this, and this will be the result" and then say "I don't have to prove it". Especially when they acknowledge that there are other variables which might have an impact. It is a fundamentally-flawed approach to editing, especially if they wish to use this as a test case for future articles. If this is a procedure that the project is going to continue to use in the future, then Tvx1 and Twirlypen have the responsibility to show that their edits are doing what they claim to be doing. But instead, they have chosen to refuse to demonstrate it, and have instead taken to accusing anyone who disagrees with them of owning the article. Twirlypen has already started doing it in other articles.

If they cannot prove that the edits in question are having the effect that they claim, then they should retract the claim. It's bad enough that they throw wild an unsubstantiated accusations around on talk pages (and tear AGF to shreds while doing so), but I cannot help but feel that given Tvx1's history of being at the centre of these messy debates, allowing him to continue making these claims in the article without demonstrating them will be a recipe for disaster. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You stopped caring about the TBA days ago? Then this matter is closed. If you have an issue with the conduct of editors, this isn't the place to do battle. Twirlypen (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

First, I suggest you read BATTLEGROUND.

Secondly, I should have known you would cherry-pick which parts of my response to address and ignore the rest.

Third, it is absolutely the place to have this discussion. The above represents the trajectory of the discussion, and anyone willing to wade through it will see what I have been describing—your habit of making bold claims as to the effect certain edits are having on the article, then repeatedly refusing to actually demonstrate that the edits are doing what you say they are, and then throwing around accusations of OWN and ILIKEIT when you don't get you way without opposition.

You can either retract the claim that you are making, or you can demonstrate that it is true. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

(ironically I had an edit conflict with PM while commenting/replying to Twilypen here) Most of this discussion has been completely and utterly unproductive. Please, there is no need to reference every single aspect of WP policy in every talk page discussion. In the future, can we please focus on compromise solutions if there appears to be a deadlock, rather than telling each other which policies the other side has infringed while being guilty of violating said policy themselves. I know that isn't always possible but seriously if I actually properly read rather than skim-read these talk page discussions then I fear my IQ would probably have dropped a few points. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree and like Twirlypen wrote this is not the place to raise conduct concerns. These talk page is for discussing the content of 2015 Formula One season. If a conduct concern needs to be raised the relevant noticeboard should be used. This personal nitpicking over each other is utterly unproductive and does the project more harm than good (as well does tweeting about it). All three of us need to stop. Tvx1 (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

GyaroMaguus, I am trying to find a compromise. I just want to know that whatever solution we settle on will actually work, especially if we are going to continue using it in future. But every time I ask Tvx1 and Twirlypen to demonstrate that the edit is doing what they say it is doing, I get "we don't have to prove anything to you!" as as response, and when I don't accept that as a valid argument, they start accusing me of OWN.

What would you suggest is the best course of action here? They claim that because of this change to the format, disruptive editing has stopped. Because of that, we should be able to take that formatting change, apply it to future articles, and prevent disruptive editing there. However, because the article is currently protected, because of issues with the prose describing the contract situation with the German Grand Prix, and because of discussions on this talk page directed towards editors who have made those edits that explain why the space is blank, I am not convinced that disruptive editing has been stopped because of the format changes the way Tvx1 and Twirlypen claim it to have. Therefore, I am concerned that this will not work on future articles, and that the compromise solution does not address the problem at all, making this a solution searching for a problem.

Since Tvx1 and Twirlypen are the ones making the claim, I don't think that it is unreasonable to ask them to demonstrate that it is true. If they can, that's fine. But if they cannot, then we need to start considering alternatives. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1 proposed a center-align. I agreed to the proposition. No one objected. We waited 10 days just to be sure everyone had a chance to voice any objections. We changed it. You armed up and dug in well after consensus was made. Even then - I DID consider your objection to the "massive blank white space" and expanded the acronym in an attempt to comprimise. This is when you started demanding proof and justification. You're lecturing me about AGF on my talk page, yet here you are telling people I don't collaborate and I can't be reasoned with or am unable to come to comprimise when I very clearly have made attempts. Twirlypen (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

But you didn't address the underlying issue - demonstrating that the solution does what it is intended to do. It doesn't matter which solution we used; I would still be asking you to demonstrate that it works. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Over 72 consecutive hours have passed without such an edit being made since the change was implemented. Semi-protection has been instigated 8 hours after the change was implemented. Contrary to what you claim the majority of the unwanted edits were made by auto-confirmed users. These were Editadam, Hunocsi, FixyF1(x2), Cybervoron(x2), Szymonn04 (x6, see above) and Mylife2702. It would really if we could step back and give this a week or two and then make our assessment. I you want to be really sure and include the IP's as well, I guess you'd have to request unprotecting the page. I really think you're overthinking this and putting the bar for a simple alignment change way to high. I never claimed it was the catch-it-all solution. I clearly made my point a long time ago that I consider the center alignment the lesser of the two evils because left aligning unnecessarily emphasises a blank space looking like a flag. There are now three contributors that agree the current situation is the better solution. Tvx1 (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That's because, again, I don't have to address it at your command. You are not an administrator. Everyone else seems to be on board with giving it a try to see if it works. What you're asking is for me to prove the future. Twirlypen (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Was that really so difficult? If you document the effects, we can revisit the discussion and the evidence is there if we need to implement it in future rather than having to sift through a year of edit histories.

Next time, it would probably help if you made the claim AFTER the change had been in place for a while, not beforehand. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

But you didn't want to allow us to have this change in place for a while. You reverted it as soon as we made it. You wanted scientific proof BEFORE we could try it out. Tvx1 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I wanted evidence that format changes could stop disruptive editing. Not this specific change, but change nonetheless. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of everyone's sanity, can you all please stop. Between this, and the flagicon discussion, the talk page is over six times the size of the actual article. There is obliviously nothing productive to be had of continuing this pointless argument, so why doesn't everyone walk away and let this nightmare disappear into the archives. JohnMcButts (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I want this to end just as badly as you. So I'm going to ask you a simple question. JohnMcButts, do you have any objections at all with the article in its current form. Tvx1 (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

... You're still talking about this? I just indicated that I was satisfied with the situation. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Prisonermonkeys, you want to know what to do? Okay, I'll line out how I think dichotomy discussions should go, and I'll put it alongside how you and Tvx1 (and in this case, Twirlypen)/the entire F1 WikiProject argue(s):

Good discussion	F1 WikiProject discussion
Potentially contentious point is raised.	Point which is basically all but completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things gets raised.
Counter-point is raised.	Complete and utter opposite view is argued as undeniable fact.
Discussion between points takes place, with pros and cons understood by both sides.	Argument between points takes place, with no-one letting the other side gain any ground.
Realisation that agreement will not be reached unless a new idea is suggested.	Bold text gets brought out to secure own view.
A compromise or two gets suggested.	Links to policy start being written.
One of the compromises suggested gets adjusted to suit all parties.	Discussion actually goes off-topic as personal attacks fly across.
Compromise gets implemented and everyone is satisfied.	Someone from outside the discussion sorts out the issue (with logic) just as everyone was losing the will to live.

I personally did not see your compromise (like seriously, say "here is a compromise idea"). And believe me, even I though I know you are happy with the outcome, I can assure you both solutions will work. In fact, both solutions work perfectly fine. The only thing is that when not centre-aligned, editors believe that the flag is missing, since, you know, there is a flag-spaced gap. Centre-aligning removes that issue, so unless you want to accidently violate WP:3RR again and get an extra block, I'd stick with centre-aligned. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Twirlypen proposed and implemented a comprise in writing out the acronym in its entirety. Which, im my humble opinion, is even better the longer I look at it. Tvx1 (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And my question is "what stops people from adding a flag to the TBA, even when it is centre-aligned"? There are two sets of logic being used by editors adding it in:

1) That the flag-sized gap needs a flag.

2) That the race, wherever it is, will be in Germany, so a German flag is needed.

The proposal addressed the first point, but it was presented as addressing both at the same time. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Erm, no. That was never my claim. Only the flag-sized gap. If that's the impression I gave, there's a simple misunderstanding here. If was certainly not my intention. Sorry for that. I do think however that Twirlypen's compromise has addressed the second point somewhat (oh and you overlooked Korea). If more needs to be done for that I'd say we have to use prose for that. Tvx1 (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree this isn't one of my proudest discussions. But as I said, since Prisonermonkeys has loosened his stance on opposing the issue, I consider the matter closed and won't continue to kick a dead horse. Twirlypen (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

PM, when centre-aligned, adding a flag would make the row look out of place, so, you know, it won't get added. But to be brutally honest, I don't care why and I don't think it actually matters. This is not a Maths question, we don't need to show our workings; we just to need to put together a workable outcome. Twirlypen's compromise provided said outcome, and everyone is now happy. The discussion needs no further input. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GyaroMaguus, for the record, my statement about there being an easy solution to the massive white space objection (expanding the acronym) seems to have been erased or it's just eluding me. That would explain why you didn't see it. Twirlypen (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I have had occasions where edits appeared to have accidently been removed. Regardless, it was clearly you, but then again, it is impossible for anyone (especially an easily distractible person like me) to read the whole thing. It could be there, but lost. I am not looking for it again. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.