Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 171

Talk:Public forum_debate#What_constitutes_excessive_detail?
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Public forum_debate#What_constitutes_excessive_detail?
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Public forum_debate#What_constitutes_excessive_detail? discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page. The other editors have been notified.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - - A volunteer is needed to moderate the discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am volunteering to moderate this discussion. Having read the article and the relevant section of the talk page, I would just like to clarify that the dispute is over whether the currently deleted Debate Structure section has value to a reader of the article other than as instructional content. RobbieM13 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - User:Cut card, User:Pinkbeast,User:RBGmacaroni - The moderator last posted five days ago, and is waiting for comments. Please comment within 24 hours.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry, I didn't realize that the moderator's comment was a question. I thought they'd ask us questions or something, I'm new to the dispute resolution process. I've looked at the edit mentioned, and I do agree that its content seems to be more expressly instructional than necessary. However, the main dispute was not over that edit, nor the list of resolutions, to be clear, but about past edits, specifically ones concerning the mechanics of public forum (see an edit made by myself) and a smaller list of example resolutions and their importance. Cut card (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - I think we should focus on a specific section of the argument at a time, rather than making blanket statements about the deleted content as a whole. Firstly, the "Format" section. It appears to have a lot of overlap with the second statement in the introduction; the one discussing the basic structure, which could perhaps indicate it is superfluous. On the other hand, as Public Forum debate seems to be (at least to my limited knowledge) a very standardised/standardized (is British English allowed?) format, perhaps a specific description of the way it works is valid. If the editors (User:Cut card, User:Pinkbeast,User:RBGmacaroni) could comment on this, we might be able to move towards a compromise on this aspect at least. RobbieM13 (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The format section shouldn't have that overlap. I don't really think the introduction needs the information that talks about the speeches, just an overview of the goals of public forum or something. (It also needs some cleaning up formatting-wise.) Every public forum debate has the same structure, and it really makes public forum what it is. The symmetry sets it apart from Lincoln-Douglas, and the short lengths separate it from policy. Its conventions, like slower speaking and simpler argumentation is also essential to defining the format. Much of that information was omitted in the last edit I made, in an attempt to compromise on what User:Pinkbeast saw as "instructional," but if possible I think it'd help describe public forum much better than is currently done. Cut card (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note The sources, including those sources deleted in the sections being discussed, seem to back up a lot of what you're saying, and I do agree that information on what makes Public Forum what it is is necessary for the page to be useful. If you limit the information you include strictly to facts and conclusions made in the references, then, to my view, additional content would be valid. Pinkbeast's complaints seem to be (and as he does not seem to have contributed to the discussion since his initial summary, we must rely on this for now) about citation, so perhaps you could includce a citation documenting the name change of NFL to NSDA to show that all the sources are talking about the same organisation. We will make no progress in resolving the dispute until User:Pinkbeast will contribute to the discussion, however I would suggest that, as long as you stick strictly to the information contained in the citations, the detail is not excessive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieM13 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's now been five days, User:Pinkbeast should contribute to this discussion. I believe this version strikes the right balance between necessary information about the format, and avoiding unnecessary instructional information. Cut card (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Public forum_debate#What_constitutes_excessive_detail?
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Public forum_debate#What_constitutes_excessive_detail? discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page. The other editors have been notified.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - - A volunteer is needed to moderate the discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am volunteering to moderate this discussion. Having read the article and the relevant section of the talk page, I would just like to clarify that the dispute is over whether the currently deleted Debate Structure section has value to a reader of the article other than as instructional content. RobbieM13 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - User:Cut card, User:Pinkbeast,User:RBGmacaroni - The moderator last posted five days ago, and is waiting for comments. Please comment within 24 hours.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry, I didn't realize that the moderator's comment was a question. I thought they'd ask us questions or something, I'm new to the dispute resolution process. I've looked at the edit mentioned, and I do agree that its content seems to be more expressly instructional than necessary. However, the main dispute was not over that edit, nor the list of resolutions, to be clear, but about past edits, specifically ones concerning the mechanics of public forum (see an edit made by myself) and a smaller list of example resolutions and their importance. Cut card (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - I think we should focus on a specific section of the argument at a time, rather than making blanket statements about the deleted content as a whole. Firstly, the "Format" section. It appears to have a lot of overlap with the second statement in the introduction; the one discussing the basic structure, which could perhaps indicate it is superfluous. On the other hand, as Public Forum debate seems to be (at least to my limited knowledge) a very standardised/standardized (is British English allowed?) format, perhaps a specific description of the way it works is valid. If the editors (User:Cut card, User:Pinkbeast,User:RBGmacaroni) could comment on this, we might be able to move towards a compromise on this aspect at least. RobbieM13 (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The format section shouldn't have that overlap. I don't really think the introduction needs the information that talks about the speeches, just an overview of the goals of public forum or something. (It also needs some cleaning up formatting-wise.) Every public forum debate has the same structure, and it really makes public forum what it is. The symmetry sets it apart from Lincoln-Douglas, and the short lengths separate it from policy. Its conventions, like slower speaking and simpler argumentation is also essential to defining the format. Much of that information was omitted in the last edit I made, in an attempt to compromise on what User:Pinkbeast saw as "instructional," but if possible I think it'd help describe public forum much better than is currently done. Cut card (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note The sources, including those sources deleted in the sections being discussed, seem to back up a lot of what you're saying, and I do agree that information on what makes Public Forum what it is is necessary for the page to be useful. If you limit the information you include strictly to facts and conclusions made in the references, then, to my view, additional content would be valid. Pinkbeast's complaints seem to be (and as he does not seem to have contributed to the discussion since his initial summary, we must rely on this for now) about citation, so perhaps you could includce a citation documenting the name change of NFL to NSDA to show that all the sources are talking about the same organisation. We will make no progress in resolving the dispute until User:Pinkbeast will contribute to the discussion, however I would suggest that, as long as you stick strictly to the information contained in the citations, the detail is not excessive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieM13 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's now been five days, User:Pinkbeast should contribute to this discussion. I believe this version strikes the right balance between necessary information about the format, and avoiding unnecessary instructional information. Cut card (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is getting ridiculous. The discussion and dispute resolution necessitates talk from both parties. User:Pinkbeast, please respond. Cut card (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note If Cut card agrees, I think it would be best to close this thread, at least for the time being. No discussion is going on. If the dispute resumes at the Public Forum Debate page, this thread could be reopened or other measures could be taken by the participants. RobbieM13 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Shabir Ally
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

After adding a list of debates for Shabir Ally, they were removed twice, first citing their size then citing their verifiability.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to discuss it on the article's talk page after the first removal

How do you think we can help?

A second opinion on the matter would help, specially that this matter is repeated in other pages like Michael R. Licona's that has a list of his debates as well.

Summary of dispute by GorgeCustersSabre
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:National Security Agency
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion with other user, filing this.

How do you think we can help?

Providing an outside opinion for the removal of content.

Summary of dispute by Thewolfchild
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:Space elevator#Graphs of optimal profiles
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved
 * 40.117.60.104 (talk)
 * 40.117.60.104 (talk)
 * 40.117.60.104 (talk)

Dispute overview

I made a couple graphs using Excel of the equations for the optimal cross-section profile which were already given in the article, with a reference. An anonymous editor deleted them, saying it was original research and complained that I used certain values of the "free breaking length" or FBL (which were also already mentioned in the article). I wrote on the talk page defending my choices of FBL, and saying that I was restoring my edit. Then an editor named Tarl reverted that, and has been claiming that my graphs are original research and blaming me for what the article says about the FBL. He seems to have animus against me because of discussions we were both involved in last year.

I still claim that making graphs of simple equations is not original research, and that my graphs should be included in the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Besides the talk page, none.

How do you think we can help?

Say whether it's allowed to make graphs and put them in a Wikipedia article.

Summary of dispute by Tarl_N.
The edits were uncited. They were reverted, and Eric Kvaalen re-instated them, violating WP:BRD. I restored status quo ante, referencing WP:BRD. At this point, there is no consensus to reinstate the edits (two editors opposed, the original author in favor).

The editor was unable to explain the basis for his edits, indicating that he was using information he found in an unreferenced section, and appears to not bring any further understanding of the matter. This editor and I have a previous history:
 * Alpha Centauri on his talk page
 * Alpha Centauri talk page
 * Superconductivity on his talk page

Given our history, I felt keeping my discussion to a minimum was the best action. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 06:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, there is a third editor involved in the discussion, at IP 40.117.60.104 . The editor is evidently quite experienced, but has used this address only recently. I'll leave a message on that IP's talk page, to see if they will participate. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 07:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 40.117.60.104 (talk)
I support continued/permanent removal of the material plus sanctions to Kvaanen for continued refusal to get the point (WP:ICANTHEARYOU).

There are two overall matters: 1) The material he wants to instate is almost all uncited, misleading, and wrong. Almost 100% made-up by him. 2) He's refusing to get the point, imploring numerous disruptive, keep-dragging-it-along misdirections to "keep it going" including this complaint on this page.

His "arguments" are all straw-man and cherry picking and miss the point again and again. For example, on this very page he misleads on the core of the matter saying that he wants us to: "Say whether it's allowed to make graphs and put them in a Wikipedia article." But, that's not the point at all...
 * -- The graph's themselves are so misleading and indiscernible as to be crazy wrong.
 * -- The graphs combined with his other material way overstate the importance of free breaking length (FBL). WP:undue?
 * -- His graphs and his other material assert directly and imply that min FBL for a space elevator is related one-to-one to planet radius, which is incorrect. That wrong idea was removed from the page some years ago, Yet, Kvaalen continues to insist otherwise -- even on this page(!).

Kvaalen made some fabulously-done, very pretty graphs. Trouble is, the data and the way they're presented are so misleading so as to be outright wrong. We've complained about them misleading people into thinking a planet's radius is the sole factor in determining the necessary specific strength of a material. And, we've complained about overstating the role of the "free breaking length" factor. But worse, I was looking closer at the graphs and, while pretty, The x axis is given in units of "altitude per free breaking length" (km)/(km of free breaking length of the material). In doing that, he removed the last remaining discernibility as to what exactly is being shown in the graphs.

I get it. I really do. I imagine Kvaalen saw the equations and thought he would whip up some nice plots for them -- and then he "got into it". Good for him. I do that kind of thing myself. I know the feeling. I applaud him for it. He even "normalized" the data like no one has ever done. In his scientific background, people "normalize" all time. But, nobody ever normalizes space elevator data that way. He took it upon himself to interpret, which is WP:OR. So there's that particular WP:OR on top of all the other WP:OR.

To defend his honor, he's been refusing to listen and quibbling like a teenager. He just won't go away. Tarl N. has learned to not wrestle a pig because ya get dirty and the pig likes it. I guess I haven't learned that completely yet. On the talk page it looked like it had settled down. But no. Kvaalen is right back at it here on this page, misstating the matter, refusing to "get it", and wasting everyone's time having to explain yet again. 40.117.60.104 (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC) I can see you're frustrated. I'm not going to comment on personalities. I do want to suggest some reading, including WP:BIGDEAL and WP:PERSONAL. There are many other such essays and guidelines. As a rule, it is always best to focus on content and not on behavior, and remember that you can always choose to WP:DISENGAGE. I'd like to see all participants focus on the narrow topic at hand, avoid personal attacks, and work toward compromise. Coastside (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Space elevator#Graphs of optimal profiles discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I will wait for all the participants to provide a summary of the dispute (above) before commenting. Coastside (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC) First, I want to point out that there is a Wikipedia No Original Research Notice Board, which might be a suitable venue to solicit input on this question. However, please don't take the topic there while the issue is open here on the DRN. I will try to facilitate a resolution as a third party volunteer.

Second, sorry this is a long note. To paraphrase Twain, I didn't have time to make it shorter. It's tricky issue, and I want to be helpful.

It's clear from reviewing the talk page discussion that the participants are aware of the no-original-research policy guidelines. I saw, for example, reference to WP:CALC regarding use of routine calculations.

I'd like to draw attention to a more detailed policy discussion of derivations and restatements of scientific and mathematical content which is also applicable and may be helpful. As explained there, illustrative examples and restatements are often necessary. In fact, they are encouraged "provided that a reader who reads and understands the references can easily see how the material in the Wikipedia article can be inferred".

Examples include the article on Methane clathrate which includes an created and uploaded by a Wikipedia user and a footnote with a detailed calculation showing the derivation of a statement in the lead.

It's also important to remember that users are encouraged to upload original illustrations because copyright laws generally limit the number of images available in Wikipedia.

Regarding the graphs in the article on the space elevator, my 3rd-party opinion is that attempting to add illustrative material, including original images and graphs, to the Physics section of the article is rather laudable. This article is interesting even to the non-scientist, and the science is interesting even to the non-mathematician. Illustrations may help make a section that is full of mathematical formulae somewhat accessible to the less scientific reader who is nonetheless interested in the topic.

Having said that, the question of whether original graphs and images contain "original research" is something that needs careful consideration. Ultimately, this must be determined by consensus of the editors. It's clear here that consensus has not yet been reached.

Nevertheless, I encourage the participants to work toward a consensus about how to create original graphs or illustrations that improve the article without violating principles of WP:NOR. What I see in the talk page discussion is all too common with such issues. The participants are focused too much on whether an edit has been reverted and whether editors' motivations are valid, behavior appropriate, etc. When this happens, the participants miss out on an opportunity to collaborate and work together to make the article better. In this case, I see several smart people, including an enthusiastic editor who wants to make the article more accessible to the reader. There is no reason not to work together and build a consensus about improving the Physics section of this article with graphical illustrations. The key is not to focus on particular edits and revisions, but rather on the ultimate goal of improving the article, and to recognize the power of collaboration and consensus-building. If you can achieve that, everyone wins. Coastside (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Questions for all participants to facilitate collaboration and compromise:
 * 1) Do the participants agree that it's important to have consensus among editors regarding whether original illustrations contain original research?
 * 2) Do the participants agree that illustrations might be helpful to improve the article, specifically the section on Physics?
 * 3) If the participants agree on the above two points, can they agree to work to collaborate to define and create meaningful illustrations to help readers better understand the article content?
 * If there is agreement on the points above, I will be willing to help facilitate the process as best I can. Coastside (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, while I agree on the need for consensus and the desirability of illustrations, I don't agree on these illustrations being desirable. I simply don't trust Eric to understand the text he's editing, I've repeatedly found him in other articles making factual errors due to misunderstanding what he read. I have since found that attempting discussion results in WP:WALLOFTEXT (see the Alpha Centauri talk page). My stance right now is that I can't accept anything from him unless I see a reliable source which actually says what his text does. This dispute is probably not amendable to resolution - but I am willing to accept a third party telling that I'm being unreasonable. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 21:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Since you are asking for third party feedback, I will say that you are entitled to your opinion, of course. However, you don't need to "accept" or reject what any particular editor contributes. Editors on Wikipedia aren't gatekeepers of other editors contributions. There are lots of guidelines and essays on this, and I'm sure you can avail yourselves of those. Bottom line is that Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia. In any case, given that the participants don't all want mediation, I'm going to close this thread.

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

Bumper Stumpers
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Bumper Stumpers is coming back to GameTV as confirmed here on Feb 4:

https://www.igametv.com/shows/1278/

but AldezD thinks it's unsourced info

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i tried to provide the source and told AldezD told him to do the research first (i wasn't being rude or anything and if i was i'm sorry

How do you think we can help?

Talk to the AldezD

Summary of dispute by AldezD
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by E2e3v6.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Bumper Stumpers discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. It appears this dispute was initiated within minutes of the first entry on the article's talk page. In addition, the other editors have not yet been notified by the filer. I would like to volunteer to moderate this dispute however I will hold-off pending further talk discussion and editor notification. airuditious (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * is unsourced, and the link in posted February 3 did not originally include scheduling details for February 4. It's a dynamic target link with data that will change based upon the day it is accessed. WP:BURDEN of proof is for editors to include sources when adding info. Stop making unsourced edits and they'll stop being reverted for being unsourced. Telling another editor "to do the research first" is not compliant with WP:V and WP:BURDEN. The summary left in, "there is your source next time do the stupid research before you rollback edits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is childish. Also, "i wasn't being rude or anything and if i was i'm sorry" is ridiculous. Based upon edit history, summaries are filled with harassing and aggressive comments (examples , , ). Is this editor WP:COMPETENT?  AldezD (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There is some ongoing discussion on article's talk page so will wait to see if this can be resolved there. Reminder that some of the other editors mentioned in this case have not yet been notified. airuditious (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC) The filer has indicated, on their talk page, that they are on indefinite hiatus. I will give this another 24 hours to see if they return and resume the DR process. If the hiatus is still in effect at that time, then I will close the case for lack of participation. airuditious (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC) After more than 36 hours, the filer's talk page continues to indicate the editor's hiatus status which I interpret as their not engaging in Wikipedia activities for the time being. In addition, the discussion that has taken place at the article's talk page did provide a reasonable explanation as to why the edit in controversy may not be allowed. For both of these reasons, I am closing this incident. airuditious (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 World Rally Championship
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The dispute is over the entry table and whether it should be condensed into a single table or be have a split format.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed on the article talk page and at the WikiProject.

How do you think we can help?

By offering additional opinions on the subject.

Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys
I must apologise for going over 2000 characters. There are a few issues at hand here and some require explanation. I believe that the entry list should be condensed down to a single table for the following reasons:
 * The purpose of the entry list is for entries. Eligibility to score manufacturer points is only a secondary concern. There is another table in the article that details which manufacturers scored points and where. To split the entry list is a case of over-design.
 * The entry list does not provide details of every single entrant in the World Rally Championship&mdash;just the entrants in World Rally Cars (you will note that Yoann Bonato is listed in the drivers' championship table but not in the entry list; this is because he was entered in another championship first). This decision was made because entry lists for individual events can have up to 90 entries, most of which will only contest one round in non-World Rally Car entires. In the interests of brevity and relevance, the decision was taken to limit the entry list to WRC entries. Splitting the table effectively creates three lists: manufacturers, non-manufacturers and entries that do not merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia.
 * All WRC cars are classified as "Priority 1" (P1) cars regardless as to whether or not they score manufacturer points. Manufacturer entries do not receive any special privileges that non-manufacturer cars do not. All of the sources used in the article&mdash;such as this one&mdash;clearly indicate that these cars are treated equally by the sport's governing body. Indeed, all P1 cars that are capable of completing a stage must complete the stage in order for the result to be valid. Non-manufacturer entries may not score manufacturer results, but they can affect manufacturer results. This is precisely what happened at the 2018 Wales Rally GB where the final stage was interrupted and had to be run only for P1 cars.
 * 2019 saw the creation of a multi-class championship in the 2019 World Rally Championship-2. Because of this, the article uses a split table format as teams and crews are competing for different championships under the same regulations. The WRC-2 competes at the same events as the WRC, but with less-powerful cars. They are treated as "Priority 2" (P2), which is run in the same way as P1 (if P1 cars can complete the stage, but P2 cars cannot, the P1 results will stand and the P2 results will not). This has created a situation where 2019 World Rally Championship uses a split table despite the regulations whereas 2019 World Rally Championship-2 uses a split table because of the regulations. Based on this, I think it is reasonable to suggest it is a contradiction and readers could come to the conclusion that non-manufacturer WRC entries are competing for separate titles (which they are not).
 * The split table format over-emphasises the importance of the manufacturers' championship. The scope of the article extends well beyond the manufacturers' championship. If a split table format is to be used, there should be one table for manufacturer entries and one for drivers' and co-drivers' entries. This effectively means repeating the same table and adding none-manufacturer entries onto one.
 * Related articles do not use a split table. The entry list in the 2019 Rally Sweden article does not distinguish between manufacturer entries and non-manufacturer entries (Bertelli, Tuohino and Gronholm).
 * The split table format is a hangover from over a decade ago when the sport had a series of very complicated rules about who could enter as a manufacturer. Those rules no longer exist.
 * Splitting the table is inconsistent with the wider scope of WP:MOTOR. No other motorsport championship articles split their entry lists. The only comparable scenario is in MotoGP, which used to have a system called "Claiming Rule Teams" that split teams up based on their manufacturer status, but those championship articles did not split their entry lists.
 * Despite my objections to denoting manufacturer eligibility in the entry list at all, I have proposed a solution that allows for one entry list but gives the reader the freedom to sort the table based on that eligibility. Klops has point-blank rejected any compromise solution.

Klops has also made several arguments that I would like to address here:
 * He claims to have a consensus in favour of the split table. What he has is two people in favour, one opposed and one who does not care either way. I have repeatedly asked him to provide reliable sources to address my concern that WRC crews are treated differently depending on their manufacturer status. He has so far failed to provide any sources. While I appreciate the importance of consensus, I believe that this is barely a consensus to begin with and is invalid because it contradicts the reliable sources that clearly demonstrate that all P1 cars are treated equally. He claims that the split table does not imply a difference, but the only evidence that he can provide is his claim that he does not think it does.
 * He has repeatedly claimed that the split table is justified because manufacturer drivers get more coverage from the media. This statement is misleading: first, manufacturer drivers get the most coverage because they are the most competitive, but non-manufacturer drivers in 2017-generation cars can compete with manufacturers; they just haven't had any success yet. More importantly, the rules introduced in 2017 created the most powerful cars since the Group B era. Group B was banned after several driver fatalities, so the sport's governing body introduced rules restricting access to the most powerful cars to manufacturer teams. Those rules have gradually been relaxed as drivers prove themselves capable of handling the cars. To suggest the media only covers manufacturers is misleading because until recently only manufacturers were allowed to enter the cars.
 * He has also claimed that the 2019 article needs to be consistent with the style of previous articles because "the tables have been used for years". This, however, is a catch-22. If all articles must be the same, then articles cannot be tailored to meet their individual needs and changes to the sport may mean that individual articles require a different format … which they then cannot have because it would contradict the format of the other articles. An article should be written to take into account its individual needs first. Consistency with other, related articles is nice where possible, but it should not be the primary consideration of the article. As an example of this, the 2012 and 2013 championship articles are very different to one another. A major overhaul of the regulations was introduced in 2013, and this was reflected in the structure of the articles (2013 also saw the creation of the WRC-2 and WRC-3 series, which got their own articles instead of being lumped in with 2013 World Rally Championship). These articles have not completely broken down&mdash;and indeed have remained stable for years&mdash;despite having different styles. If a single table format is applied to the 2019 article, then it could be applied to the 2017 and 2018 articles, or those articles could be left as is subject to discussion. However, Klops refuses to discuss this and instead insists that all three must remain the same and so changing the 2019 article is out of the question in case it contradicts other articles even if it is in the interests of the 2019 article to change it.

In short, this is a common sense approach to the article. Whatever opposition has been presented has been based on user perceptions of the changes and has not been supported by any sources. All attempts at finding a compromise have been met with absolute refusal to discuss the issue. Furthermore, Klops has taken to claiming that his edits are justified by a consensus despite having a tenuous position at best and no reliable sources to support his position. He has taken to sitting on the article for nearly 24 hours a day and reverting changes on sight to try and bludgeon his preferred version through. DRN is the only avenue open to me to resolve this. 1.144.105.219 (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Klõps
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

2019 World Rally Championship discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

User talk:2601:1C0:CC02:E445:FD9E:F221:8837:7DF1
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The album title is currently incorrect. Look at the image of the album, which is right there on the page - it is clearly "Hoochie Cooche Man" rather than "Hoochie Coochie Man" as currently listed. Discogs verifies the spelling of "Cooche" as correct, as does the copy of the actual album I have in my possession. User "Serols" has reverted my edits - twice - and refuses to engage in discussion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Multiple attempts at editing and communicating with Serols.

How do you think we can help?

Verify the accuracy of my edit by (1) looking at the album cover image, and (2) cross-referencing with the (correct) discogs entry.

Summary of dispute by Serols
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:2601:1C0:CC02:E445:FD9E:F221:8837:7DF1 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration_workshop#Houthis_(fictional_flags)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview
 * (SharabSalam)
 * (SharabSalam)

I made four fictional Houthi flags as satire. But the user named "شرعب السلام" takes these satirical files way too seriously and thinks that they are a "POV" and "propaganda". I've marked them with a template that states that these are fictional flags. Theres also a category in Commons that focused on political satire. He then threaten to report me to the admins just because I made these files just for the purpose of satire.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I told him that is it fictional and for satire.

How do you think we can help?

You can tell him that Wikimedia Commons allows satirical files and that he should not take satire seriously.

Summary of dispute by SharabSalam
Hi, regarding your second point I am not going to discuss the deletion here but here is the nomination and the discussion and there are already three editors who support the deletion two of them are admins (according to, they are taking it "too seriously"). He claims I am taking it too seriously this might be partially true but he didn't clarify that these flags are on purpose of satire until I have already asked experienced editors that if I can nominate these flags for deletion, until I have made all of the comments about the flags and until he accused me for "taking things too seriously". check the history of some the flags   After this, I guess it is understandable why I took these flags "too seriously" although I believe that I honestly take absolutely nothing in Wikipedia "too seriously". He has a history with Houthi-related articles like adding made up categories (All of his Houthi-related categories have got deleted BTW) into Houthi-related articles etc etc. I honestly think he is the one who should take things too serious when he for example put a category like "criminal family" into Houthi article.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration_workshop#Houthis_(fictional_flags) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hello - you mentioned you had discussed this on a Talk page - can you point me to which one? I checked the article and the editor's talk pages and didn't find any discussion relating to these images or this dispute. I also checked the actual project article page and did not see this specific issue mentioned. Thanks. airuditious (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC) I just found the flags and the discussion you mentioned - it appears like this was just archived. To avoid any further confusion, I will update the link in the case details. airuditious (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Hello all - after doing a bit more research, I have decided to volunteer as moderator for this case. Two quick things to mention: (A) I do not see that all editors have had a notice from the filer placed in their Talk pages - this may be why the other editor's have not yet provided their feedback here; (B) In the project's talk page, you mentioned that all 3 images have been nominated for deletion. I did check the current Files for discussion page as well as the delete nominations and was unable to find anything related to the images under dispute. Can you please provide a pointer to that nomination? Once all editors have been notified and feedback received, then we can continue - Thanks. airuditious (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Should we have a instant negotiation here? I'm tired arguing with Salaam and I don't want anything bad or crazy to happen that anyone can't control. In case things goes awry, I think we should close this and a deal for each of us. I know the Houthis are one of the most controversial people on this planet. The reason why I think that the Houthis are a "criminal family" is because these articles. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Thank you for the pointer to the image deletion request. Next, I do sense a bit of frustration which I can relate to - content disputes can get get heated at times but I need to remind everyone that we can only deal with the content aspect of this dispute here. That said, I have a had a chance to read the deletion request and because these same images are currently under review via that more formalized process, and because the result of that process would basically supersede what resolution may be reached here, I feel it only appropriate to close this case in deference to the RfD process. Also, please keep in mind that DR requests cannot be accepted if the same dispute is currently being handled via various other processed. Please see the header of the noticeboard for more details - Thanks. airuditious (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Should we apologize to each other for the mishaps? I think that these flags and my edits regarding the Houthis are useless anymore, I've changed my mind. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC) I always think it beneficial to apologize to individuals that may have somehow been slighted. Someone much wiser than me opined that apologies really don't cost that much but often pay massive dividends (please don't ask me who that wise person was). That said, I suppose those comments could be left here but in my experience, I've found such comments are best left on individual User Talk pages. airuditious (talk) 23:17, February 9, 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Public forum_debate#What_constitutes_excessive_detail?
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Public forum_debate#What_constitutes_excessive_detail? discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page. The other editors have been notified.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - - A volunteer is needed to moderate the discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am volunteering to moderate this discussion. Having read the article and the relevant section of the talk page, I would just like to clarify that the dispute is over whether the currently deleted Debate Structure section has value to a reader of the article other than as instructional content. RobbieM13 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - User:Cut card, User:Pinkbeast,User:RBGmacaroni - The moderator last posted five days ago, and is waiting for comments. Please comment within 24 hours.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry, I didn't realize that the moderator's comment was a question. I thought they'd ask us questions or something, I'm new to the dispute resolution process. I've looked at the edit mentioned, and I do agree that its content seems to be more expressly instructional than necessary. However, the main dispute was not over that edit, nor the list of resolutions, to be clear, but about past edits, specifically ones concerning the mechanics of public forum (see an edit made by myself) and a smaller list of example resolutions and their importance. Cut card (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - I think we should focus on a specific section of the argument at a time, rather than making blanket statements about the deleted content as a whole. Firstly, the "Format" section. It appears to have a lot of overlap with the second statement in the introduction; the one discussing the basic structure, which could perhaps indicate it is superfluous. On the other hand, as Public Forum debate seems to be (at least to my limited knowledge) a very standardised/standardized (is British English allowed?) format, perhaps a specific description of the way it works is valid. If the editors (User:Cut card, User:Pinkbeast,User:RBGmacaroni) could comment on this, we might be able to move towards a compromise on this aspect at least. RobbieM13 (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The format section shouldn't have that overlap. I don't really think the introduction needs the information that talks about the speeches, just an overview of the goals of public forum or something. (It also needs some cleaning up formatting-wise.) Every public forum debate has the same structure, and it really makes public forum what it is. The symmetry sets it apart from Lincoln-Douglas, and the short lengths separate it from policy. Its conventions, like slower speaking and simpler argumentation is also essential to defining the format. Much of that information was omitted in the last edit I made, in an attempt to compromise on what User:Pinkbeast saw as "instructional," but if possible I think it'd help describe public forum much better than is currently done. Cut card (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note The sources, including those sources deleted in the sections being discussed, seem to back up a lot of what you're saying, and I do agree that information on what makes Public Forum what it is is necessary for the page to be useful. If you limit the information you include strictly to facts and conclusions made in the references, then, to my view, additional content would be valid. Pinkbeast's complaints seem to be (and as he does not seem to have contributed to the discussion since his initial summary, we must rely on this for now) about citation, so perhaps you could includce a citation documenting the name change of NFL to NSDA to show that all the sources are talking about the same organisation. We will make no progress in resolving the dispute until User:Pinkbeast will contribute to the discussion, however I would suggest that, as long as you stick strictly to the information contained in the citations, the detail is not excessive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieM13 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's now been five days, User:Pinkbeast should contribute to this discussion. I believe this version strikes the right balance between necessary information about the format, and avoiding unnecessary instructional information. Cut card (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is getting ridiculous. The discussion and dispute resolution necessitates talk from both parties. User:Pinkbeast, please respond. Cut card (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note If Cut card agrees, I think it would be best to close this thread, at least for the time being. No discussion is going on. If the dispute resumes at the Public Forum Debate page, this thread could be reopened or other measures could be taken by the participants. RobbieM13 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note Would you be happy for me to close this thread for now? RobbieM13 (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 World Rally Championship
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys
I must apologise for going over 2000 characters. There are a few issues at hand here and some require explanation. I believe that the entry list should be condensed down to a single table for the following reasons:
 * The purpose of the entry list is for entries. Eligibility to score manufacturer points is only a secondary concern. There is another table in the article that details which manufacturers scored points and where. To split the entry list is a case of over-design.
 * The entry list does not provide details of every single entrant in the World Rally Championship&mdash;just the entrants in World Rally Cars (you will note that Yoann Bonato is listed in the drivers' championship table but not in the entry list; this is because he was entered in another championship first). This decision was made because entry lists for individual events can have up to 90 entries, most of which will only contest one round in non-World Rally Car entires. In the interests of brevity and relevance, the decision was taken to limit the entry list to WRC entries. Splitting the table effectively creates three lists: manufacturers, non-manufacturers and entries that do not merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia.
 * All WRC cars are classified as "Priority 1" (P1) cars regardless as to whether or not they score manufacturer points. Manufacturer entries do not receive any special privileges that non-manufacturer cars do not. All of the sources used in the article&mdash;such as this one&mdash;clearly indicate that these cars are treated equally by the sport's governing body. Indeed, all P1 cars that are capable of completing a stage must complete the stage in order for the result to be valid. Non-manufacturer entries may not score manufacturer results, but they can affect manufacturer results. This is precisely what happened at the 2018 Wales Rally GB where the final stage was interrupted and had to be run only for P1 cars.
 * 2019 saw the creation of a multi-class championship in the 2019 World Rally Championship-2. Because of this, the article uses a split table format as teams and crews are competing for different championships under the same regulations. The WRC-2 competes at the same events as the WRC, but with less-powerful cars. They are treated as "Priority 2" (P2), which is run in the same way as P1 (if P1 cars can complete the stage, but P2 cars cannot, the P1 results will stand and the P2 results will not). This has created a situation where 2019 World Rally Championship uses a split table despite the regulations whereas 2019 World Rally Championship-2 uses a split table because of the regulations. Based on this, I think it is reasonable to suggest it is a contradiction and readers could come to the conclusion that non-manufacturer WRC entries are competing for separate titles (which they are not).
 * The split table format over-emphasises the importance of the manufacturers' championship. The scope of the article extends well beyond the manufacturers' championship. If a split table format is to be used, there should be one table for manufacturer entries and one for drivers' and co-drivers' entries. This effectively means repeating the same table and adding none-manufacturer entries onto one.
 * Related articles do not use a split table. The entry list in the 2019 Rally Sweden article does not distinguish between manufacturer entries and non-manufacturer entries (Bertelli, Tuohino and Gronholm).
 * The split table format is a hangover from over a decade ago when the sport had a series of very complicated rules about who could enter as a manufacturer. Those rules no longer exist.
 * Splitting the table is inconsistent with the wider scope of WP:MOTOR. No other motorsport championship articles split their entry lists. The only comparable scenario is in MotoGP, which used to have a system called "Claiming Rule Teams" that split teams up based on their manufacturer status, but those championship articles did not split their entry lists.
 * Despite my objections to denoting manufacturer eligibility in the entry list at all, I have proposed a solution that allows for one entry list but gives the reader the freedom to sort the table based on that eligibility. Klops has point-blank rejected any compromise solution.

Klops has also made several arguments that I would like to address here:
 * He claims to have a consensus in favour of the split table. What he has is two people in favour, one opposed and one who does not care either way. I have repeatedly asked him to provide reliable sources to address my concern that WRC crews are treated differently depending on their manufacturer status. He has so far failed to provide any sources. While I appreciate the importance of consensus, I believe that this consensus is invalid because it contradicts the reliable sources that clearly demonstrate that all P1 cars are treated equally. He claims that the split table does not imply a difference, but the only evidence that he can provide is his claim that he does not think it does.
 * He has repeatedly claimed that the split table is justified because manufacturer drivers get more coverage from the media. This statement is misleading: first, manufacturer drivers get the most coverage because they are the most competitive, but non-manufacturer drivers in 2017-generation cars can compete with manufacturers; they just haven't had any success yet. More importantly, the rules introduced in 2017 created the most powerful cars since the Group B era. Group B was banned after several driver fatalities, so the sport's governing body introduced rules restricting access to the most powerful cars to manufacturer teams. Those rules have gradually been relaxed as drivers prove themselves capable of handling the cars. To suggest the media only covers manufacturers is misleading because until recently only manufacturers were allowed to enter the cars.
 * He has also claimed that the 2019 article needs to be consistent with the style of previous articles because "the tables have been used for years". This, however, is a catch-22. If all articles must be the same, then articles cannot be tailored to meet their individual needs and changes to the sport may mean that individual articles require a different format … which they then cannot have because it would contradict the format of the other articles. An article should be written to take into account its individual needs first. Consistency with other, related articles is nice where possible, but it should not be the primary consideration of the article. As an example of this, the 2012 and 2013 championship articles are very different to one another. A major overhaul of the regulations was introduced in 2013, and this was reflected in the structure of the articles (2013 also saw the creation of the WRC-2 and WRC-3 series, which got their own articles instead of being lumped in with 2013 World Rally Championship). These articles have not completely broken down&mdash;and indeed have remained stable for years&mdash;despite having different styles. If a single table format is applied to the 2019 article, then it could be applied to the 2017 and 2018 articles, or those articles could be left as is subject to discussion. However, Klops refuses to discuss this and instead insists that all three must remain the same and so changing the 2019 article is out of the question in case it contradicts other articles even if it is in the interests of the 2019 article to change it.

In short, this is a common sense approach to the article. Whatever opposition has been presented has been based on user perceptions of the changes and has not been supported by any sources. All attempts at finding a compromise have been met with absolute refusal to discuss the issue. Furthermore, Klops has taken to claiming that his edits are justified by a consensus despite having a tenuous position at best and no reliable sources to support his position. He has taken to sitting on the article for nearly 24 hours a day and reverting changes on sight to try and bludgeon his preferred version through. DRN is the only avenue open to me to resolve this.

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

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


 * What and how happened

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


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


 * My arguments

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

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

Mclarenfan17 was countering my arguments with:
 * the idea that we should follow FIA rules and that FIA considers all WRC cars equal.,, etc.
 * I don't think that Wikipedia articles need to follow rules of some international organisation and anyhow the way the article is does not imply that the cars are not equal or that they run in different classes.


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

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

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

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

First statements by editors
@ &mdash; the issue is the format of the entry list and whether it should be one table or two. I believe that it should be one table because one table is a more appropriate format for the article. I have three reasons for this: (1) The purpose of the entry list should be to give details of who entered an event. Making distinctions between manufacturers and non-manufacturers is an added layer of complexity that is unnecessary as there is another table in the article that details who those manufacturers are. (2) Being a manufacturer entry affords you no special privileges; every crew in the entry list(s) is treated equally. I feel that splitting the entry list into manufacturer and non-manufacturer entries over-emphasises the importance of the manufacturer entries. (3) Finally, there are some circumstances where splitting the table is appropriate; for example, the 2006 article. This was appropriate because the sport has used some complex rules about how crews enter in the past, but those rules were simplified in 2011. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (Oops &mdash; that should read @.) Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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


 * What and how happened

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


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


 * My arguments

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

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

Mclarenfan17 was countering my arguments with:
 * the idea that we should follow FIA rules and that FIA considers all WRC cars equal.,, etc.
 * I don't think that Wikipedia articles need to follow rules of some international organisation and anyhow the way the article is does not imply that the cars are not equal or that they run in different classes.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third statement by moderator
I see three possible alternatives:
 * 1. One table.
 * 2. Two tables.
 * 3. One table with sortability as described by Mclarenfan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifth statements by editors
@ &mdash; I agree that publicising the discussion at the WikiProject but continuing it here would be best. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Sixth statements by editors
@ &mdash; we could go to the WikiProject, but I'm concerned that it could easily spiral out of control if there are several voices all at once. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator
It appears that User:Klõps wants to have this discussion take place at the WikiProject. Since discussion at this noticeboard is voluntary, I will be closing the discussion here. Discussion can resume at WT:WikiProject World Rally. If discussion there is inconclusive, I would recommend that a Request for Comments be used. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI. Edit-warring may be reported at the edit-warring noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Red_Tent_(film)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Galassi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
 * Nagibin, a direct participant, states that Cardinale was a paramour. She married eventually, but her marriage was unrecognized in Italy for some years. Any claim of her being a "wife" at the time is a WP:UNDUE irrelevancy.--Galassi (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

User talk:Hypernerd387
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Information about Loyola Jesuit College has been available on Wikipedia for more than 10 years. It included a brief summary, information on the school's campus and history, admission information and school principals.

At some point two weeks ago, The Banner deleted entire sections in the school's page particularly the Campus & History section stating it was advertising. The information although detailed is ACCURATE, UNBIASED, OBJECTIVE with clear CITATIONS included which is what the Vandalism Administrator made the Banner try to understand before suggesting we take the dispute here

The Banner keeps saying my INTENT is to make the school more attractive. Unbelievable. I let him know this content has been on wikipedia for more almost 15 years, I did not put this information there and I'm not affiliated with the said institution although it is one of the most prominent in Nigeria.

The dispute page suggests that editors focus on CONTENT and not conduct. He keeps talking about my intent ignoring the most important part of the page, THE CONTENT. The content of the section of the page he deleted had citations included, is accurate and verifiable but The Banner is stuck on deleting and near vandalizing the page.

Please see previous by me and please undo the changes the Banner keeps making

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed this on both our talk pages, taken it to the Vandalism administrator who agreed with me (please see my talk page) and removed restrictions to editing placed by The Banner.

How do you think we can help?

Please explain to The Banner that his INTENT argument for deleting content is invalid and straight ridiculous. You cannot determine an editors intent for undoing an edit that has been on a page for over a decade over the internet.

Please remove the advertisement tag on top of the page that was placed by the Banner. An administrator removed restrictions to editing placed by The Banner

Summary of dispute by The Banner
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:Hypernerd387 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Neurodiversity#Criticism section
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Talk:Neurodiversity#Criticism section discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Comment - User:Sleeplessbooks - Please do not say that another editor is vandalizing a page unless they are vandalizing the page. The incorrect allegation of vandalism is a personal attack.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Sleeplessbooks (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Question - Is the filing party asking for moderated discussion in order to reach a compromise, or are they simply asking for another editor to look at the discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it possible for someone more experienced to look at the discussion and weigh in? Specifically, helping us to understand how Wikipedia's policies play into what's happening. User is archiving all conversation, and putting it in a place where -- if my understanding is correct -- we aren't supposed to be adding on to. It feels like there's an attempt to shut down conversation in ways that go against rules. That's why I'm asking for help. Sleeplessbooks (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out that it seems that the real intention of Sleeplessbooks is to delete the criticism section entirely, which will most likely never happen Talk:Neurodiversity. There are many reliable sources in this regard. Ylevental (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Question - Since both parties have commented, are the two parties interested in moderated discussion? If what is wanted is simply for a third editor to comment, then a Third Opinion should be used.  If both parties want moderated discussion, we will request a moderator,  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree. User:Ylevental is trying to game the system. The issue Sleeplessbooks is talking about is not the Neurotdiversity article itself. It's about Ylevental archiving the talk page way too soon, trying to hide the debate he had with Sleeplessbooks and hide any previous issues with the criticism section (which there were, and have since been acted upon). Ylevental has a history of not being held responsible for his promotional activity (hence his paranoid assumption here that this is about deleting the criticism section of the main article - diverting from the real issue). The archiving was indeed vandalism for what it's worth in my view for the reasons I explained. 2001:8003:58DD:C700:64C6:7BB2:D963:2A7D (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional note - another person (Tathar) has confirmed that Ylevental did the wrong thing archiving on the talk page concerned 2001:8003:58DD:C700:64C6:7BB2:D963:2A7D (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User talk:CordialGreenery
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

User Malik Shabazz repeatedly resulted in personal attacks when confronted with opposing viewpoints on an article. Accused me of not knowing how to read, called me "Dumbo", "Too proud or too stupid", and told me to "grow up". Generally aggressive behavior.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted to discuss in the talk page on disputed article. User ignored talk page and reverted without description.

How do you think we can help?

Address blatant uncivil and aggressive behavior from serial problem editor.

Summary of dispute by MShabazz
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:CordialGreenery discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * The "Dumbo" remark was a response to this"Shabby's non-constructive comment aside". When I blocked CordialGreenery for editwarring I told Malik "Malik, you shouldn't have responded on his talk page the way you did." This is moot at the moment as CordialGreenery has continued to editwar on the same article and I've blocked for 72 hours. Doug Weller  talk 15:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Haze (band)#External_links
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I stumbled over it, because it is listed below the TFD for Template:Blogger, and I edited Template talk:Blogger earlier. Same idea as Haze (band), and WP:LINKSTOAVOID appear to be mutually exclusive wrt past tour dates.
 * TFD Songkick:
 * Talk:Pink_Floyd:

Have you tried to resolve this previously?


 * 1) Special:Diff/884045720/884068790 on User talk:Pigsonthewing.
 * 2) WP:drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass on Talk:Pink Floyd

How do you think we can help?

Educate me and User:Pigsonthewing about the current policies and guidelines wrt external links and cleanup templates, cf. Special:Diff/884069412/884090598.

Summary of dispute by Pigsonthewing
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Haze (band)#External_links discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - To quote from Pigsonthewing, please write in English. It isn't clear what the dispute is.  It will probably be closed shortly.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Happy Science
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

[Issue] Delete the notation "hat has been recognized as a cult." At the top of the article.

[Agenda of proposer] (Sorunikusu) ① As already mentioned for "cult", it is described in the "Controversy" column. It is non-neutral to notation at the top. ② The citation source article in "cult" notation is "opinion". "Certification Fact fact" is not presented.

From ① and ②, it is appropriate to write the opinion "There is a person who thinks to be a cult" in the "Controversy" column.

However, it is inappropriate to list it as "important facts" at the top.

[Opposing Opinion] (bonadea) ① The discussion has already been completed. Answered. Do not present the same argument. ② "Important facts" should be posted at the top of the article as a lead.

【Differences in opinion】 ① Is "cult" an "opinion" or "an important fact"? "Opinion" (Sorunikusu) - described only in "Controversy" column "Important facts" (bonadea) - stated at the top of the article About ① "Unanswered." (Sorunikusu) "Answered." (Bonadea)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I spent a lot of time not to discuss it continuously.

How do you think we can help?

Since it is difficult to continue the discussion between the parties, we hope to judge third parties.

Summary of dispute by Sorunikusu Bonadea
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Happy Science discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filer did not list the parties correctly, and the other party has not been notified. It is the responsibility of the filer to notify the other editor or editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - Is this a content dispute that can be resolved by compromise, or is this a yes-no question that can be better answered by a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I carried out what you advised. What should I do later? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: The filer, Sorunikusu, has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --bonadea contributions talk 17:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Beyond_My_Ken#BEN_SHAPIRO
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I left a message.

How do you think we can help?

Yes

User talk:Beyond_My_Ken#BEN_SHAPIRO discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:List of_Andi_Mack_episodes#"It's_A_Dilemma"_-_spelling_issue
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

One of the list of episodes for this television show has an intentional misspelling of the word 'dilemma' as 'dilemna,' which is a very common misspelling of that word. I feel this might lead readers to roll their eyes at WP not being able to catch spelling errors and would like to address it somehow. I've 'adopted' this typo and saw in the other five instances this word is misspelled intentionally it's addressed by either mentioning the misspelling or using [sic], so I added in an explanation, but was reverted as being trivia. I suggested a shorter explanation, but that didn't get us to consensus either. I suggested inserting [sic], and after ten days of no response, inserted it, but it was reverted. After further discussion, it's clear that we aren't reaching consensus on our own, so I thought it might be helpful to get some other eyes on it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've made three proposals, one inserting an explanation (that was an actual edit made, moved to talk page after it was reverted), one on the talk page proposing a shorter explanation, one on the talk page proposing inserting [sic]. Another editor has since inserted a hidden comment to editors explaining that the misspelling is intentional, which I think is helpful but doesn't solve the original problem.

How do you think we can help?

I'm hoping others will take a look and chime in. If I'm just being nitpicky about intentional spelling errors, I'm wide open to taking the page off my watch list, orphaning the typo dilemna, and trying not to think about it. :) I do not believe any other editor has done anything wrong in the least; it's just a simple content dispute.

Summary of dispute by Amaury
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by MPFitz1968
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Geraldo Perez
Two related issues. Is the deliberate misspelling of a word of the title worthy of mention as being important to the episode? Is the deliberate misspelling of a word in the title something that should be pointed out in the article as being deliberate so that readers don't think there is a mistake in Wikipedia? Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of_Andi_Mack_episodes#"It's_A_Dilemma"_-_spelling_issue discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I would like to focus on how to handle the intentional misspelling of "Dilemna". Regarding the other question about whether this merits discussion in the text, I see that as a separate issue which should be discussed further in the Talk page.

Here are what I think are points of agreement:
 * This is not a typo to be corrected. Rather, it is an intentional misspelling
 * It's a "trivial" misspelling

Regarding triviality, I'd like to point out that the guidance at WP:sic says that trivial typos, such as "basicly" should simply be corrected. However, as per the first point of agreement, this is not a typo to be corrected. Given that, I don't think the triviality is relevant other than perhaps to say it doesn't merit a DRN discussion. :o)

I'd also like to point out that it is actually important to do something to indicate that this is an intentional misspelling, and that a hidden wiki comment is probably insufficient. The reason is that bots and automated wiki editors may correct this misspelling automatically, and they won't heed a hidden comment.

Given that, I think the paths forward for handling this are one of the following:


 * Use sic to indicate an intentional error in a quotation
 * Use typo to indicate text that is deliberately incorrect

One could debate whether this is quotation (it isn't, but it can be treated as such with regard to the use of "sic"). However, the big difference between these is whether the notation is visible in the text. The typo template is invisible to the reader (but will keep the text from being corrected inadvertently). The sic template is typically visible, but it does have a "hidden=y" parameter option, in which case it would be equivalent for the most part to typo.

The only reason I see in the discussion so far to make the notation visible is that readers would "roll their eyes" at WP's lack of ability to catch errors.

Personally (injecting my opinion here), I think Wikipedia's reputation isn't on the line. Furthermore, the use of "sic" is usually for quotations, to indicate that the error is in the original and is not a typo in the current rendering. The episode title is quoted, and the reader understands this as a name of an episode. There is a degree of recognition that names are sometimes misspelled deliberately for creative reasons, such as with band names, in which case few people would assume a misspelling (even if it was actually a typo!). It would certainly be silly to write every reference to the Beatles with "Beatles [sic]".

With this additional input from me. Let me poll the participants.

1) Can we agree the choices should be sic (visible notation) or typo (hidden notation) as I suggested? Or do we need to consider other options?

2) Can we reach consensus? I suggested (my personal opinion, which you are certainly welcome to ignore), that typo is probably the best course.  But I'd like to know where the participants stand after hearing my thoughts. Coastside (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My $0.02 – based on your description of how the templates work, it sounds like Not a typo would be the better choice here. I'm assuming a reason parameter can be inserted as well, to explain why the template is being used. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, in this case typo is more appropriate than not a typo. The template not a typo is meant to be used in cases when the text is actually correct and editors might think it is not correct, i.e., they might think it's a typo. The example given for that template is "put some english on the ball" where "english" is lower case.  It's correct in lower case although some editors might think it is a typo - in short, it's not a typo.  The template typo is used for deliberate errors in the text, which is exactly what this case is. It's a bit confusing, because it's not really a deliberate "typo", it's a deliberate "misspelling", which structurally is really the same thing.Coastside (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer or  as there are two goals here, prevent bots from correcting the text, and tell editors that was the intended spelling. Along with a hidden note to editors, and the fact the title is sourced in the column header that should be a sufficient resolution to this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As the title is a proper name, perhaps would be a better template choice here? In any case, I don't feel there should be a [sic] or in-text comment.  There are, for example, many song titles which have intentional misspellings, and we wouldn't want to [sic] all of those. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the issues is what to display to a reader. As a well-sourced title we shouldn't need to tag it for a reader. The other issue is how to tell editors and bots that this is a deliberate misspelling of a common word. Hidden tags and notes should serve that purpose, the question is what to put in the source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , why would we need to explain it to editors more than to readers? I would have thought the opposite. Editors know to check sources. valereee (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Source in this case is a column reference, not immediately obvious if not looking for it, so helps to use hidden comments and other aids to help make things easier for those looking to fix things. Also some editors are just readers of the article who think they have spotted a mistake that they think needs to be fixed and want to help out. Some may have never edited an article before and may just want to fix, what to them, is an obvious spelling mistake. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think there has been sufficient discussion of alternatives and implications. I'd like to suggest one of the participants be bold and suggest how they want to proceed and see if the others are willing to go that route. I don't think a vote or debate over the perfect solution is merited. Can someone take the initiative to close out this issue? If we can reach a consensus I will close the DRN. Coastside (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I made this edit 2 days ago as an attempt at a compromise solution. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I support it. That is perfectly acceptable in addition to the hidden note. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

are you ok if I close out this DRN? Seems we have reached a consensus.Coastside (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Other editors agree on this solution and dissenter accepts this outcome so I will close.Coastside (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's early and I haven't had coffee, so forgive if I'm being stupid -- there's nothing to tell a casual reader it's an intentional misspelling? I don't love not having that, but if it's what every other editor here thinks is the best solution, I won't keep arguing. But to be clear, what I was hoping for was something that would show to readers, not just editors. valereee (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Discussion moved here from Commons. Essentially an aesthetic dispute, but factual edits are getting caught up in it (and a few of them are disputed as well). There is a map of legal recognition of same-sex marriage (SSM) across the world. Several editors want to change one of the colors (which has been on the map since its creation in Nov 2012) to match a similar map in another article. However, the matching color is barely distinguishable on this map -- in the case of Israel, essentially invisible. Some have said the original color is insufficiently distinct from yet another color, which I have tried to address by making the two more distinct, but because there is no engagement in that, I suspect it's not the actual motivation for the dispute. There is also a dispute over whether British military bases that have their own laws but no permanent inhabitants, or where the permanent inhabitants do not have access to SSM, should be marked on the map as being "open" to SSM, when the same editors don't want to mark other military bases or territories with no permanent inhabitants. There are some other disputes (e.g. Estonia, which the original proposer has now conceded is not clearly supported by RS's -- the issue is not obvious and our sources are not very clear), but the primary problem seems to be the color choice. BTW, the same dispute arose a couple years ago, with the same reason -- that the two maps should use the same colors. We tried that, but there were multiple complaints by people who couldn't read the map that way, so we reverted. Part of the problem is that the editor who is edit-warring insists on lumping all the changes together -- there is an alternative version of the map now that matches the color of the other, etc. -- rather than taking them one at a time. Edit-warring based on claims of consensus though AFAICT no-one who joined the discussion here on WP-en agrees with the changes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page, on Commons and WP-en (with notification to multiple people who have edited the WP-en article), editing the colors of the map to make them more distinct, suggesting that the map in the other article be changed to match the color of this one. There is no compromise from the other side--this map must match the color of the other one even if that renders it illegible, w apparently no reason other than aesthetics and the philosophy that the same color mean the same thing.

How do you think we can help?

An outside perspective, perhaps proposing new compromises, an explanation that insisting one is right or voting does not make consensus, etc. I don't particularly care about the specific colors, I just want to make sure the resulting map is legible. (Though it is nice that similar colors mean similar things, e.g. greater shading for greater rights -- that's a feature of the other map as well, and I would prefer not to violate that unstated iconic principle.) As for disputed territories, another voice on whether the proposed changes would be useful to the reader or whether they are supported by RS's.

Summary of dispute by Buyerseve
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. To sum it up, a new map was created due to the fact that Kwamikagami continuously reverted changes by other users despite discussion and objection to his changes. Due to the fact that he's the uploader of that file he constantly told users to make their own map. User:Jedi Friend created a map that was basically the version of the original map - File:World marriage-equality laws (out of date).svg, that was present prior to Kwamikagami's series of major changes. The discussion on the talk page Talk:Same-sex marriage established a consensus on the usage of the map uploaded by Jedi Friend with Jedi Friend, Glentamara, Panda2018 0, Sander000 and myself all supporting the usage of that map and Kwamikagami being the only one opposed. The further discussions about the content are still ongoing, but the consensus on map usage remains. Kwamikagai refuses to abide by this by continuing to revert back to his own map despite the discussion. --Buyerseve (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Chipmunkdavis
I have not read the older conversations regarding this, having been drawn into the conversation at Talk:Same-sex marriage after being pinged by Kwami. A number of users have suggested a variety of changes to the map, and perhaps related maps, which have been opposed by Kwami. I am not sure whether Kwami opposes every change, because they have all been bundled together into a new map by some of the other users. This has made discussion tricky, as a number of unrelated changes are all being pushed at once. Some even seem to have been reverted/moved to a third path with consensus between Kwami and the other parties, but again it is hard to tell due to the nature of this discussion. If the various elements were discussed elsewhere with significant arguments, these have not made it over to the current discussion (a bit of heat and not too much light). Where moderated discussion would help would be in disentangling all the arguments presented, so they can be handled separately/in a sensible order. My preference would be to start with the pre-edit war map, and work from there, in the spirit of consensus/brd, and so that there are not multiple maps floating around. CMD (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(response to implied question above -- any changes I thought improved the map, such as a simplification of presentation proposed by Jedi, have already been made to the map displayed in the article. The remaining differences are ones I have issues with, or updates that have not (yet) been made to the alt map. — kwami (talk))

Summary of dispute by Sander000
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Panda2018 0
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Jedi Friend
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

[Jedi Friend responded that they've "decided to completely stay out of this".]

Same-sex marriage discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * I'm gonna be curmudgeonly here. This is like disputing the best way to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. As I tried to convey under that discussion, it doesn't matter which colors you use to display this information in a format that is already a poor vehicle for communicating this sort of information. While it's everyone's go-to, a map is a suboptimal way of displaying information broken down among the map's subdivisions, and this discussion is an excellent illustration as to why that is.
 * The information being communicated is just as significant for teeny, tiny territories as it is for great big territories. But a map, while making it easy to discern that information as it relates to great big territories, makes it really tough or impossible to discern for teeny, tiny territories. This falsely gives the impression that the former information is important and the latter unimportant.
 * It doesn't matter what color Akrotiri is if Akrotiri can barely be detected. It probably matters a great deal more, to more people, what the status is of SSM in Singapore than in Greenland, but the latter is much more readily acquired from a world map than the former.
 * The best way to convey this sort of information is the table. A table should be supplemented by a graphic visualization only when the graphic visualization is an improvement on the table. For breakdowns of data by subdivision, with one exception (in that it allows regional trends to be discerned), a map is not an improvement. This makes it especially unproductive to debate whether color A or color B is the best way to convey information about a territory that can barely be seen at all anyway. Largoplazo (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have been notified.  Is this a question that can be best resolved by moderated discussion leading to compromise?  This dispute appears to have a large number of editors, and with large numbers of editors, Requests for Comments often work better.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be fine by me. But I think moderated discussion might prove useful. E.g. when Buyerseve keeps repeating the same seemingly false claims, they might listen to an independent moderator disputing those claims or asking for clarification, whereas they're obviously not listening to me. Or perhaps a moderator might be able to determine if there is some truth behind those claims that I can't see, since there is no real dialog between us. — kwami (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely support a moderated dialogue. --Buyerseve (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert McClenon, having effectively been called in by a RfC, I do not find the discussion as it is on that page now very conducive to an RfC, as the issues have seemingly been discussed elsewhere and very little of this background made it into the new discussion. For example, I had to find and place the two maps being discussed on the talkpage myself. It's also unhelpful that the discussion covers various unrelated issues. An RfC may be more useful later in the process. CMD (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator
Since some of the editors have said that they do not think that an RFC is in order, but that moderated discussion is in order. I will offer a trial run of moderated discussion. I will not necessarily take this dispute to completion. Please read the rules and comply with the rules. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Be civil and concise. In order to determine whether moderated discussion is in order, and whether and why an RFC is or is not in order, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, why they think that moderated discussion will or will not be useful, and why they think that an RFC will or will not be useful? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Art Deco
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Certain user think I am some banned user and is consistent in undoing all my edits that are sourced from reliable sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Communicating, but user does not want to engage in general and when he does engage he is hostile.

How do you think we can help?

Point out that my edits follow rules, are reliable sources and should not be reverted.

Summary of dispute by Coldcreation
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:Alternative medicine
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Multiple editors are actively mocking the subject of the article in that article itself. It seems that they are choosing a biased stance in the presentation of information, and appear to be mocking fellow editors when they attempt to discuss alternatives. This amounts to Direct rudeness:"(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")," as well as the original issue, "3.1 A few things to bear in mind Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral, instead of endorsing one viewpoint over another, even if you believe something strongly. Talk (discussion) pages are not a place to debate value judgments about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs, and other wikis. Use article talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I don't have the technical skill in Wiki editing yet to properly explain to Guy_Macon (and the others) that, while he seems to be arguing against false neutrality, he is in fact willfully biasing his description of the article's definitions, using subjective instead of objective descriptions, and misrepresenting other points of view, offering up "straw man" arguments in place of proponents' actual perspectives and arguments.

How do you think we can help?

I don't want these editors sanctioned; I just don't think that they understand that zealously defending good journalistic and academic standards by slandering and mocking the side they disagree with is not what Wikipedia's standards or its founder (quoted by name in the Talk page) stand for.

Summary of dispute by 2601:602:77F:D6EE:ECB8:539C:E130:834B
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Guy Macon
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

"Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page." I was never notified. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

2601:602:77F:D6EE:ECB8:539C:E130:834B and I have each made exactly one post to Talk:Alternative medicine, and 2601:602:77F:D6EE:ECB8:539C:E130:834B has made one post, total. We have never interacted. Nor have either of us I ever interacted with Mattpeck. No interaction = no dispute to resolve.

My only post is at Talk:Alternative medicine, and I fully stand by my statement. I would also note that my post did not "mock fellow editors" or "belittle a fellow editor".

The lack of prior discussion alone is sufficient to close this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Talk:Ben Shapiro#Infobox_caption
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

t is conflicted on the above section whether the subject's name should be provided in the infobox caption or not. There have been too many reverts and edit warring. We are unable to have a consensus. Pleas help.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to discuss but it has turned into a matter of opinions. I cannot get a third opinion since already more than 2 users are involved.

How do you think we can help?

Decide what is best. Probably place RFC if it stays unsolved.

Talk:Ben Shapiro#Infobox_caption discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Ordinal numbering of Croatian PM Tihomir Orešković
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

We are disputing over the ordinal numbering of PM Tihomir Orešković.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have tried to work the issue out on Mewulwe's talk page with no success.

How do you think we can help?

By bringing out your opinion on this case

Summary of dispute by Mewulwe
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Ordinal numbering of Croatian PM Tihomir Orešković discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Institute for_Creation_Research
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved

Dispute overview

Please see talk section 4 & 5 (both closed/archived).

The ICR (Institute for Creation Research) page has been written in such a tone which infers anti-ICR biased. Several suggestions have been brought forth which did not even call for the removal of content, but rather revising of wording or placing certain wording into a different section. The current and previous requests for edits were quite reasonable and also made the structure of the article more professional (since overt bias is not regardless of content). However, every time a discussion is brought forth, the same group of admins close the discussion or refuse to acknowledge the structural changes strictly on their own or referenced biases and opinions. In other words, they ignore the content of the suggestions (which has to do with the structure, not the content) and they focus on the content of the article and repeatedly argue content based arguments.

As it stands, the article (at least the suggested changes) will not pass for an unbiased representation of the ICR and will not pass if an article written by university student due to heavy bias. It does not present with NPOV and too many arguments against making suggested changes rely on the pseudoscience loopholes, which give this undue biased tone.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

User talk pages, which have been reverted to the article talk page. Trying to point the discussion back to structure and not content.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a strict structure based opinion, read the article (at least the suggested changes) from purely a grammatical and structure point of view (as is done in university).

Summary of dispute by GliderMaven
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Doug Weller
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Ian.thomson
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by JzG
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 73.217.43.51
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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