Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Dragon Age: The Veilguard	New	Sariel Xilo (t)	13 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	21 hours	Sariel Xilo (t)	17 hours
Ustad Ahmad_Lahori	Closed	Goshua55 (t)	8 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 11 hours
Elizabeth Mynatt	Closed	Jesspater (t)	7 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 23:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Regional power#Pakistan

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Mar4d on 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Regional power#Pakistan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mar4d (talk · contribs)
• Sdmarathe (talk · contribs)
• Orientls (talk · contribs)
• My Lord (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The 'dispute' centres around the inclusion of Pakistan on Regional power, which has longstandingly been listed under the 'South Asia' section since at least 2009 [1], and with various different sources. On 28 June, a fellow IP removed the entry which, under normal circumstances, is testament to the high degree of content blanking and WP:VAND the article undergoes. When this was restored by someone else, the content was reverted this time by Adamgerber23, who later stated it was by mistake. The WP:STATUSQUO was seemingly again restored [2]. However, we have had a host of further reverts since then by newer users to the IP version [3] [4] [5], who have contended on the talk page that the entry is not merited. The full sequence of edits can be found in the edit history, while the longer discussion is available in the linked talk page section. The dispute resolution will need to rely on the presence of sources and cited content which support Pakistan's inclusion [6] [7] including Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, T. V. Paul, James N. Rosenau, Roger Kanet, Samuel P. Huntington amongst others.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The matter has been discussed extensively on the talk page with a wide breadth and variety of references, and also landed up at WP:AE [8]

How do you think we can help?

Refer to above. A good start would be to weigh the references we have, and what they summarily support with respect to the above positions, as well as what the sources do not support or state what they are claimed to. Best regards. Mar4d (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sdmarathe

• Issue has been well explained below by Orientls and My Lord. In my view, we should wait for the sources that pass WP:CONTEXTMATTERS since these are issues like WP:EXCEPTIONAL and passing mentions are not going to help deal with this. Regards! Sdmarathe (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Xavexgoem: Yes as long as the source leaves no doubts in describing Pakistan as regional power. Sdmarathe (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Orientls

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

Following are the main problems with this dispute:-

• You can discover such passing mentions for many countries for supporting the specific country's status as "regional power". If passing mentions/few sources is all you need then India had to be listed as Great power long ago on Wikipedia.
• Sources for Pakistan fails WP:IRS as described on talk page and other venues.
• Scholars have focused enough of describing that how India emerged as a regional power [9][10][11][12] but no one has described how Pakistan emerged as a regional power. But there are sources that focuses on describing how Pakistan is not a regional power.[13]

Following are the problems with the article as a whole:-

• It's a list. In Wikipedia I believe paragraphs are more preferred.
• It combines major regional power, secondary regional power and minor regional power into one list, which creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE and gives same weight to major regional power as much as it gives to a minor regional power.

These are some main problems that needs to be addressed. I am not sure if DRN would resolve these issues, I had better plans but lets try this for now. Orientls (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by My Lord

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

Details provided by Mar4d and Orientls highlights the summary of the dispute as recognition of Pakistan as a regional power. For now I would like to see the sources that have "described how Pakistan emerged as a regional power" like it has been asked above in order to pass WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. India's regional power status does seem to be passing that requirement as per this reliable source. My Lord (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Regional power#Pakistan discussion

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

• I will take this on, pending the rest of the summaries. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Xavexgoem. Best regards, Mar4d (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's begin. Here are the ground rules:

1. Assume the good intentions of other editors. If you are not able to assume good faith, please tell me immediately so we can work it out. If anyone treats another editor with disrespect, I will ask why you do not believe that editor is acting in good faith. I will point out instances where the charges leveled against that other editor could be leveled against you. You may feel that my charges are unfair or inaccurate, and you'd probably be right.
2. Please do not link to NPOV, V, OR, or RS, or their sections. We all know what they mean, and we all know why they're important. If you feel something is not neutral, for instance, say why it's not neutral, without reference to the policy.
3. Please do not edit the section of the article that's in dispute. If someone outside this mediation changes it to a version that you don't agree with, do not revert the edit. By definition, a revert restores an article to its consensus version. Mediation is proof of lack of consensus. I will take a reversion to mean that you feel that your version is consensus, and therefore you feel that mediation is pointless.

The big question is the sources. I've included them at the bottom of the discussion.

1. In which ways are the current sources inappropriate?
2. In which ways are the sources not directly supporting the notion that Pakistan is a regional power? In other words, how are they being taken out of context?
3. For including Pakistan on the list, what would an ideal source look like?

Thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will like to start off by noting these multiple citations are attributed to various scholars of international relations and political science. Their works have been published by several top publishers such as Cambridge University Press, Princeton University Press, Taylor & Francis etc. and vetted in peer reviews. All attest to the regional power status of Pakistan. More precisely, the sources cited are quite categorically listing Pakistan as a regional power. The quotes embedded into these citations under the source list are evidence. From this, we know multiple internationally renowned experts have termed Pakistan a regional power whereas the opposing argument is solely centered on one reference (Rajagopalan), who as I have thoroughly detailed on the article talk page, also uses the exact term 'regional power' several times to refer to Pakistan even while he identifies the country's strengths and weaknesses. Such 'analysis' can be said to exist for almost all regional powers, and by itself is not sufficient evidence to claim that Pakistan is not a regional power, nor does it overrule the position of the multiple sources mentioned. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No one has said that Mar4d provided unreliable sources. Editors asked him to cite the sources that pass WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Rajagopalan never said Pakistan is a regional power, he in fact dismissed this notion and said "Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power."[14] Since Mar4d is not citing the sources that pass WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, but only mentioning the passing mentions which can be also discovered for Algeria, Venezuela, North Korea and many countries that are not regional power, I think we really lack the required scholarly consensus to name Pakistan as the regional power in the present article, unless we can re-design the article. But even after that, naming Pakistan as the regional power won't be faithful towards sources since that is best treated as a sub-regional power or a minor regional power, but again the concerning policy cannot be ignored. ML ^talk 14:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Please remove the references to CONTEXTMATTERS, per the rules above. I do request that you rewrite this, without reference to the guideline. I'm sorry to be difficult :) --Xavexgoem (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The sources from Mar4d fail at explaining in detail how and why Pakistan is a regional power; while, on the other hand, I have provided many reliable sources that describe how Pakistan is not a regional power and completely refutes Mar4d's arguments (e.g. [15]). Now Mar4d can post such a strong source talking in favor of Pakistan being a regional power, and I would gladly change my stance ! What type of sources do we need? An example would be this source, though it is about India as a regional power. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

So the parties against including Pakistan as a regional power would accept its inclusion if there are sources that say its position as a regional power is justified. Two questions:

1. Is this a correct assessment?
2. Are there nuances that I'm missing?

Please answer the questions individually. Thanks, --Xavexgoem (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Source list

• Barry Buzan (15 October 2004). The United States and the Great Powers: World Politics in the Twenty-First Century. Polity. pp. 71–. ISBN 978-0-7456-3375-6. Regional powers define the polarity of any given regional security complex (Walt 1987; Lake and Morgan 1997; Buzan and Wæver 2003): India and Pakistan in South Asia...
• Buzan, Barry; Wæver, Ole (2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press. p. 55. ISBN 978-0-521-89111-0. In the framework of their regional security complex theory (RSCT), Barry Buzan and Ole Waever differentiate between superpowers and great powers which act and influence the global level (or system level) and regional powers whose influence may be large in their regions but have less effect at the global level. This category of regional powers includes Brazil, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey.
• Paul, T. V. (2012). International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation. Cambridge University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-1-107-02021-4. Retrieved 3 February 2017. The regional powers such as Israel or Pakistan are not simple bystanders of great power politics in their regions; they attempt to asymmetrically influence the major power system often in their own distinct ways.
• Ersel Aydinli; James N. Rosenau (2005). Globalization, Security, and the Nation State: Paradigms in Transition. SUNY Press. pp. 177–. ISBN 978-0-7914-6402-1. Regional powers refers to the much larger and, in international security terms, much more significant, category of states that define the power structure of their local region: India and Pakistan in South Asia; South Africa in southern Africa; Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia in the Gulf; Egypt, Israel, and Syria in the Levant; and so forth. Regional powers may not matter much at the global level, but within their regions they determine both the local patterns of security relations and the way in which those patterns interact with global powers.
• Narang, V. (2014). Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400850402. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
• T. V. Paul; Linda Paul; Teleglobe Raoul-Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies (2000). Power Versus Prudence: Why Nations Forgo Nuclear Weapons. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. ISBN 978-0-7735-2087-5. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
• Nadine Godehardt; Dirk Nabers (12 May 2011). Regional Powers and Regional Orders. Taylor & Francis. pp. 306–. ISBN 978-1-136-71890-8. It is also a nuclear power, with dozens of nuclear warheads and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (Khan and Lavoy 2008). By these crudely material resources measures, Pakistan should be considered a major regional power.
• T. V. Paul; Richard J. Harknett; James J. Wirtz (2000). The Absolute Weapon Revisited: Nuclear Arms and the Emerging International Order. University of Michigan Press. pp. 256–. ISBN 0-472-08700-2.
• Kenan Aksu (18 July 2014). Turkey: A Regional Power in the Making. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 92–. ISBN 978-1-4438-6453-4. ... Central and South Asia have now been renewed with fresh interpretations especially in regard to the regional powers of Uzbekistan and Pakistan.
• Sumit Ganguly; S. Paul Kapur (18 August 2008). Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia: Crisis Behaviour and the Bomb. Routledge. pp. 212–. ISBN 978-1-134-06962-0.
• Edward A. Kolodziej; Roger E. Kanet (18 June 1989). Limits of Soviet Power. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 202–. ISBN 978-1-349-10146-7. Because of Pakistan's reemergence as at least a regional power, we identify an emerging pentagon of power in and around South Asia...

Talk:Ernst Rohm#Decorations and awards

– New discussion.

Filed by Troy von Tempest on 02:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Ernst Rohm (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Troy von Tempest (talk · contribs)
• Batternut (talk · contribs)
• Kierzek (talk · contribs)
• Anachronist (talk · contribs)
• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have been adding some awards and decorations with a link to an existing wiki article on those particular awards and decorations. One editor in particular has deleted that new added content, stating that the award or decoration is now classed as "trivial" and is not to be added to the article or linked to another existing wiki article. As this has happened to me on a number of pages, I have asked how am I to know what is now considered "trivial" or not, even though it has it's own stand-alone page. I have repeatedly asked for clear guidelines on what is now not allowed to be added and what stand-alone articles are allowed to be linked, but have not received an answer. I asked in light of not being told what is now apparently not allowed to be linked and what is, do I just keep adding the content on different articles and wait and see if it's deleted or not, and whether I get yet another aggressive warning about adding these unlisted and unknown "trivial" awards. I also asked what is the point of having a stand-alone article if you are never allowed to refer to it, but again, received no answer. What do I do here, do I just stop linking stand-alone articles because apparently they are now considered by two editors to be trivial or menial? Some editors have said if an article exists elsewhere, I should be allowed to provide a link to that article. Yet one editor has said I am not allowed to provide a link to that article. As he will not provide a list of now unacceptable wiki articles that can be linked, do I just keep adding and see what happens or do I just,as I've been warned aggressively, to stop adding content that is linked to an existing stand-alone article. I am genuinely seeking clear and unambiguous guidelines or rules here, not something that I am supposed to be a mind reader to understand.

Thank youTroy von Tempest (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked repeatedly on the talk page and on my own talk page but have not received an answer that clearly states what is now unallowable and what is allowable, in reference to linking to stand-alone articles. I've asked what is the point of having a stand-alone article if nobody is allowed to link to it and again, have no reply

How do you think we can help?

If an article already exists in wiki as a stand-alone page, I should be able to provide a link to it. If the stand-alone article isn't allowed to be linked or referred to, what function does it serve if you can't refer to it? If one editor claims an award is now "trivial" after I've linked it to a stand-alone article, why is a list of all "trivial" awards be provided so I do not incur the wrath of the editor for not knowing in advance what articles are now not permitted to be linked?

Summary of dispute by Batternut

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

I was made aware of the dispute at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Links to Wiki pages. The discussion at the article talk page seemed productive, and the "editorial judgment" explanation by Beyond My Ken seemed reasonable. Batternut (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kierzek

BMK, expressed it on the talk page; "editorial judgment". The fact is that as editors of articles for reading by the general public, we need to be selective about what to include and to follow consensus. Major awards are included. It has to do with WP:NOTEVERYTHING. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." And if ever brought up to GA, minor awards are not to be included pursuant to Good Article criterion 3b, which calls for staying "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". We do not want the article to become bogged down in trivial detail and must keep byte size of said article in mind, as well. Kierzek (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Anachronist

My only involvement in this dispute is a comment I made on Talk:Ernst Rohm, in which I expressed a view that awards notable enough to merit their own stand-alone articles are likely not minor, and there should be no controversy about wiki-linking such awards in articles about people who earned them. This is an encyclopedia, and wikilinking relevant awards for which we already have articles enhances the encyclopedic content. I disagree with the "editorial judgment" that a mere two additional wikilinks, without the possibility of further growth in the list, constitutes "unnecessary detail". ~Anachronist (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken

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

Talk:Ernst Rohm#Decorations and awards discussion

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#2014_and_2015_teams_and_drivers_tables

– New discussion.

Filed by Corvus tristis on 13:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#2014 and 2015 teams and drivers tables (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Corvus tristis (talk · contribs)
• Tvx1 (talk · contribs)
• Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs)
• DeFacto (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute about table (teams and drivers) formatting.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the Wikiproject talk. Suggestion to implement 2014-2015 format to 2016-2019 articles.

How do you think we can help?

You can give neutral opinion according to the WP guidelines. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tvx1

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

In late 2013 a discussion was started to find a new way to order the team's and drivers' tables in the F1 season articles. The discussions went on for weeks and weeks until finally we agreed on a satisfying format which was ultimately used in the 2014, 2015. For some unknown reason we simply forgot to apply the format once the 2016 got underway. Three months ago was held regarding the removal of a particular column from said tables in some of the season articles. When a decision was made in favor of doing so, user Corvus Tristis took the task on them to remove the column where needed. However inexplicably they also decided to change the table format for the 2014 and 2015 articles, ignoring the consensus resulting from the above discussions. Hence, I reverted. Corvus Tristis has resorted to edit-warring with multiple users on the mentioned articles and initiated a discussion at WT:F1 where they and Prisonermonkeys tried to declare the 2014 consensus invalid between the two of them, principally claiming an edit consensus from an other article. I feel this clashes with the basic principles of Wikipedia with regards to consensus. No one has complained ever about the tables in the contested article and I just don't understand their pressing need to instigate a change.Tvx1 17:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No one or me and Prisonermonkeys? Multiple users or just you and DeFacto? Consistency isn't the basic principle of Wikipedia? If everybody has a social amnesia than why after the dispute which helped you, DeFacto and some speechless spectators to restore the 2014-2015 format in memory, no one has implemented the format in 2016-2019 articles? Corvus tristis (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys

I've forgotten my password, so I'm semi-retired.

Short version: the team and driver tables in the 2014 and 2015 Formula 1 championship articles contained the ability to sort the various columns. The system was introduced in 2014 as the sport changed the way it numbered its cars; the sortable function was included as a compromise to give readers flexibility. However, the sortable function stopped being used from 2016 onwards.

The question is why the sortable function was discontinued and whether it should be revived (and if not, whether it should be removed from the 2014 and 2015 articles). Personally, I don't think it's worth it. The markup required is very complex (and parts are probably redundant given the experimentation needed to implement it) and there does not appear to be any tangible benefit to it. There certainly hasn't been any demand or desire to reintroduce it. 1.129.109.150 (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DeFacto

My involvement in this started when I noticed from my watchlist that the 2014 Formula One World Championship and 2015 Formula One World Championship articles had been modified. Reviewing them I saw that tables had been converted from sortable, which they had been for some time, to non-sortable. Seeing no discussion on their talkpages, I reverted the articles back to their long-standing state per WP:BRD and WP:EDITCONSENSUS. My edits were reverted and a short discussion took place on my talkpage. A couple of days later, as the reverter hadn't convinced me that they had a consensus to change and after I asked them to self-revert back and they hadn't - and everything had gone quiet, I reverted them back. My view is that there is currently no consensus to change these articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#2014_and_2015_teams_and_drivers_tables discussion

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

• Volunteer comment: Quoting Tvx1,

  Edit consensus cannot overrule community consensus from such a massive discussion anyway.

  There was huge discussion leading to that table format and we should not act like it doesn’t exist.

  Where is the prior discussion? It has not been linked to by any party. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I provided links in my summary.Tvx1 23:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that the dispute is more about how one interprets consensus than about the formatting of the list itself? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I thought the dispute was more about consistency, which means nothing for the two of the users. But yes, they don't want to hear anything, excepting the outdated consensus. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

So one party is saying, in effect – and please correct me if I'm wrong – that the prior discussion precludes future consensus; and another party is saying that that consensus is already outdated. You can see why I asked.

I recommend said parties at least admit that the consensus is gray – neither precluded nor outdated – before we proceed. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean that consensus about "satisfying format which was ultimately used in the 2014, 2015" is outdated and that the other party doesn't want to have future consensus and doesn't want to implement the "satisfying format" in 2016-2019 to avoid inconsistency either. Another party's opinion on inconsistency is "issue which just doesn't exist". Corvus tristis (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't claim there can't be future consensus. I claim a strong consensus was achieved after lengthy discussion and cannot simply be ignored. I also claim that consensus does not have a preset timeframe during which it remains valid and after which it ceases to exist. It's certainly not up to two people to decide among the two of them in a local consensus that they can completely ignore such a strong consensus. If these users want a change they need to do achieve a proper consensus through a proper discussion as per wikipedia's policies. They haven't done that at the moment. There also isn't any editing within the contested articles or discussion on their talk pages indicating that a change of table style is wanted. The articles have been stable for years in the version following the consensus in the discussions back then which directly applied to those articles. I don't see anything justifying changing the stable version of that article. Why fix something that isn't broken in anyway? Lastly the filer constantly undermine themselves with the "consistency" argument since this whole thing came up through them deciding to change the table style without any form of discussion when they were actually introducing inconsistency with regards to including a tyre column in these tables in these articles.Tvx1 13:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the opposite side has introduced inconsistency with 2014-2015 tables in the first place, it was earlier than removal of the tyre column. The lengthy discussion isn't a valid reason to use different style for just two seasons, if it is still valid then the opposite side should implement the format in the other post-2014 articles. And yes, I'm trying to fix the problem through the discussion, but it isn't possible when the opposite side sees nothing outside "Why fix something that isn't broken in anyway?" You may say it, but it wouldn't fix inconsistency anyway. I'm glad that now Tvx1 at least admitted that inconsistency exist. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Non-moderator volunteer questions - First, User:Prisonermonkeys - Why don't you register a new account and declare it as an alternate account rather than popping up as a Ninja IP? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: @Robert McClenon — because I'm still in two minds about continuing my Wikipedia career. So far it's a losing battle, but I don't think I'll be around much longer. 1.129.108.50 (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Second, this appears to be a case of forum shopping, of trying to use both an unofficial RFC (Straw Poll) and Dispute Resolution. This doesn't seem to be good faith. Can we limit one form of dispute resolution, or is the objective to wear down the other side by multiple requests? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: @Robert McClenon — because that's how "consensus" is formed at WP:F1 these days. It's not about collaboration, it's about a siege mentality. Both sides in a dispute bunker down in their respective positions and try to wait the other out. Everything drags out as people start circling the wagons and "consensus" is formed by the last person standing. I don't want this to sound like a personal attack, but I think the main problem is Tvx1. We have achieved a consensus before only to do nothing with it because he has prevented it and people who disagree with him are often referred to ANI on trumped-up accusations. There's currently a discussion on the 2018 season talk page that is a prime example of this. Almost everyone is in agreement that that the order of a table is the worst possible order for us to use, and despite the clear desire for change, nothing has happened because no-one is willing to back down and no-one is willing to back down because if they do, it will be brought up to discredit them in future. WP:F1 is completely dysfunctional when it comes to forming a consensus. 1.129.108.50 (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

My Korean Jagiya

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Hotwiki on 10:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• My Korean Jagiya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hotwiki (talk · contribs)
• Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Editor User:Spacecowboy420 have removed all supporting characters and guest cast in the article. Then when he gets reverted, he then tagged the article for being a fansite and not being neutral, which in my opinion are both false.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Edit summary, edit warring page, talk page of the article

How do you think we can help?

Third opinion.

Summary of dispute by Spacecowboy420

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

When I saw the article and the huge cast list, I trimmed it to the main characters only. Unfortunately the editor who filed this request has proven less than easy to deal with in regards to discussion and compromise. I made two edits on the article, so he responded with a 3RR report [[16]] This 3RR report was filed before any attempt to discuss the article on my user talk page or the article talk page. Every attempt at compromise has been met with comments such as "you clearly didn't watch the show " " you are clearly wrong" "try researching first" "You clearly have an agenda here" "See in you content dispute page" " You have an agenda here, and given the track record of your edit history and block history, I'm not surprised. You'll be reported for this."

It seems pretty clear from the 3RR report and this request here that the editor involved has no desire to communicate or compromise and that they are far more interested in more combative form of resolution.

The actual content is quite easy. See what the current standards are for similar articles and make sure this article is in line with that.

But, that's going to require the other involved editor to calm down a little and stop looking for a fight. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

My Korean Jagiya discussion

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

I'll take this on. Here are the ground rules:

1. Be polite. If I believe that you are being rude, I will ask you to stop. If you do not, or attempt to argue around it, I will abandon the case. Assuming good faith is part of being polite.

If both editors would please respond to these questions individually:

1. Why does it matter why the supporting cast is/isn't listed?
2. In what way is the fansite notice justified/unjustified?

--Xavexgoem (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Polite should be easy and productive, so thanks.

1. The cast list is extensive. While I can understand that in an extremely notable production (for example, who played minor roles in Star Wars is highly notable) this production is obviously not a major production. As per MOS:TV - "Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed" and I feel that a lot of the cast fails notability.

There are currently about 60 lines devoted to minor cast members with details such as "Khaine dela Cruz[6] as Paolo "Pao" Kim The son of Ji-hu and Cindy. Gia tutors him in school, while his uncle, Jun-ho takes care of him." Neither the actor nor character nor additional content is notable.

I'm not doubting the accuracy of the content, or reliability of the sources. I just don't think it's encyclopedic or beneficial to the reader.

Have you seen the show? "I'm not doubting the accuracy of the content" would seem to indicate that you haven't. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Not exactly my type of TV show. But then again, I also edited the Leprechaun article and I haven't seen one of them either. I don't think that disqualifies me from editing the article, in fact it probably makes me a far more neutral editor than someone who already has a bias towards that show. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

2. The fansite notice is justified because only a fan of the production would be interested in which minor and actor played which minor character, in a minor show. If this show was as notable as Game of Thrones it would be an entirely different case. But it isn't, so it isn't, Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

My answers: 1. Why does it matter why the supporting cast is listed? Because the supporting cast is billed in the credits of the show and plenty of articles can verify their appearance in the show so as the guest actors. Also leaving them out of the cast section would just make the cast section incomplete. Would the visitors of the article who have seen the show want to see an incomplete cast list especially the supporting cast who are billed in every episode of the show? I don't think so. 2. "In what way is the fansite notice unjustified?" Basic descriptions of the characters don't make it a fansite. In fact, the section was larger but I trimmed it down to 1 to 2 sentences because there were spoilers. So to tag the article as a "fansite" is just unjustified. Also there are only two other sections, premise and ratings which are very brief in description. - Hotwiki (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Question for Hotwiki - in light of your comment stating "Also leaving them out of the cast section would just make the cast section incomplete." how do you feel about MOS:TV - "Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed" - don't you consider your statement to be a direct contradiction of MOS:TV that is supported by consensus? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, the characters are notable within in the show which I've already explained in the article's talk page. Not every person needs to know them first just to be listed in the article. It's not like they are just a bunch of extras that have no role in the show. I surely don't know every character mentioned in the Game of Thrones article, and shows that I haven't seen, but I'm not gonna protest to remove them from the characters section especially if I don't know the content/story of the show. The article is fairly small as well for you to be removing content which ate written in neutral tone. Hotwiki (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Emma Husar

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Merphee on 04:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Emma Husar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Merphee (talk · contribs) The Drover's Wife (talk · contribs) HiLo48 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Over the past few weeks there has been extensive discussion on the Emma Husar talk page although no discussion had taken place since 8 July although edits had been made since and the discussion was obviously ongoing and editors had simply disengaged for a while. I decided to bring the matter here rather than edit war and it is clear we have reached a roadblock to resolve it between ourselves after today's editing and comments made. We had been discussing content on the talk page when today the Drover's Wife came and deleted two sections with a number of reliable sources attached all while trying to resolve the dispute. I have also been abused and accused by both editors for trying to voice my concerns. This is a politician's article and as such personal opinions and allegiances can creep in to the editing process which should not be happening. I am willing to accept the outcome of the formal dispute resolution process. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on the article talk page. Tried to compromise by editing the content in dispute and removing a section that through consensus was deemed trivial and should not be included. How do you think we can help? Independent advice and perspective to apply Wikipedia policy appropriately in the article. Summary of dispute by The Drover's Wife Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This article has been subject to repeated attempts from one user to add negative trivia: a one-day, one-newspaper story from two years ago about her deleting Facebook posts and a one-day, one-newspaper story from a year ago about her being friends with an alleged domestic abuser. Neither of these things are significant, and weren't remotely treated as such in reliable sources. The user was attempting to claim that her deletion of Facebook posts had been the cause of a change in Labor Party policy until it was pointed out that no source had actually said this; since then, he's just resorted to demanding the material's inclusion without any real attempt to justify why. This isn't a POV dispute - a major negative story broke about this MP today and I'm the one that included it because it was actually relevant. The Australian Politics WikiProject seems to face ongoing problems with enemies of people on both the left and right attempting to add random negative trivia to their articles in the hopes of smearing their opponents, and it's endlessly frustrating to those of us trying to enforce policy regarding WP:BLP and clean up the mess. I would also note that this user's entire Wikipedia presence seems to be aggressive, tendentious editing of BLPs with a poor understanding of BLP policy, and has also had to be pulled up elsewhere on attempting to make serious claims that weren't supported by reliable sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by HiLo48 I have nothing to add on the content dispute at this stage. I believe I have made my position clear on the article's Talk page. But I must point out that the claim in the Dispute overview saying "Over the past couple of weeks there has been extensive discussion..." is quite wrong. In fact, there has been no discussion at all for almost two weeks. Until today, nothing had been added on this topic since 7 July. The Drovers Wife presumably noticed this when deciding that there was clearly only one editor opposed to deleting the material, the person who has lodged this dispute, and no-one else was contributing. I was, in fact, about to do the same thing myself, for that very reason. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Emma Husar discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. One of the sections removed from the article had 3 reliable sources attached. The other section had 2 reliable sources attached. So it is completely untrue The Drover's Wife minimising things by saying a single source for each section. True in the last 12 days since 8 July, no discussion had taken place. However it was very clear the conversation was ongoing and content should not have been removed while we are trying to resolve it.Merphee (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC) That should say 13 days, not 11. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC) We've already been through this on the talk page: a newspaper story and the video attached to the newspaper story are not two different sources for these purposes, and a report in the local weekly rag doesn't add much to significance on BLP issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC) The material in question appears to be this. That text is not suitable for dispute resolution because it is plainly inappropriate coatracking and should be reverted per WP:BLP. An article on notable person A does not include muck about non-notable person B, particularly when the charges were dismissed. There is no encyclopedic reason to record nonsense about a politician hugging a condom or making an unwise joke. Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC) There is also another editor involved Snorets who has reverted The Drovers Wife's deletion. There is obvious need to have this resolved formally as no consensus has been established. And it is definitely not as simple or trivial as you suggest Johnuniq. And the drovers Wife, you are incorrect about the sources that you deleted in the middle of our discussion. They were all from major newspapers in Australia and all 5 of these reliable sources were independent.Merphee (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC) You did well if you really did find five independent, major newspapers in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Thank you for drawing my attention to that other editor, who has made precisely one edit to the article, today, after this dispute appeared here. They registered on 20 May, have made a total of 26 edits in all of Wikipedia and, like Merphee, have nothing on their User page. Even in that time they have earned a warning on their User talk page. I see some work that needs to be done on some of the articles they have edited. I shall get onto it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Johnuniq are you an administrator? The disputed section which was unjustifiably removed by The Drover's Wife is this "In 2016 it was revealed that the Communications Electrical and Plumbing Union (CEPU) donated to Husar's federal election campaign. The State Secretary of that union, Jim Metcher, had been charged in 2007 with 6 counts of assault against his wife and children but the charges were dismissed on medical grounds.[17] In her maiden speech Husar named Metcher among those people who assisted her political career. She stated "Without your support I would not be here". [18] There has been no justification to delete it apart from it possibly reflecting poorly on Husar which is npo reason not to include it. The Drovers Wife has edited it further and so have I. It is very well sourced and should definitely be included.Merphee (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Please familiarise yourself with WP:COATRACK, as Johnuniq pointed out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Yes I have thanks. Comments regarding coat racking were relating to the Husar FB comments section. Once again The Drover's wife you don't discuss the content issue at hand. While I see the point with the removal of the Facebook posts I certainly do not with the section I've included directly above that you ignored. It would be good if we could focus here instead of deflecting with personal attacks and presenting policy that I have already read.Merphee (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC) No, it wouldn't be good. This was discussed exhaustively on the article's Talk page. You are offering nothing new. This won't achieve anything. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Yes it does need resolution. Unlike the FB posts that Johnuniq deleted and the other section I deleted from the article, the section above is very consistent with policy and just because it may or may not reflect poorly on Husar is no reason for us not to include what many reliable sources published on the matter. That's what Wikipedia is all about, what the reliable sources say. The section above had also been reworked by The Drovers Wife and I had added a further reference and reworked it further. There is no reason at all provided by anyone why it should not be included apart from you and the drovers Wife not liking it. Nothing we discussed extensively as you say applies to this section and I am puzzled as to exactly why you personally don't want it included in this politician's article.Merphee (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia's ten year test. HiLo48 (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC) My answer is yes the section would be relevant and what you pointed out is just a guide not a policy. You have provided no reasons to not include the section in its current revised form. Apart from you not liking it, or it may reflect poorly on Husar have you got anything else based on actual policy? I note that both you and The Drovers Wife are ok including such sections in other politician's articles but not Labor or Greens politicians for some reason. It's puzzling why you object to this section with no reasons provided.Merphee (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC) You have said all that before, and it's been replied to many times before. HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Uninvolved Opinion 1. I don't care who is making the edits, how long they have been editing or what blocks they may or may not have. My opinions will be about the content only. 2. The content on Jim Metcher is about Jim Metcher not about Emma Husar. It doesn't belong on the article. It is a very clear case of Coatracking. 3. The content on Facebook photos is about Emma Husar, but notability needs to be shown. And even then, it still isn't really suitable unless it's a fucking huge news story. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Yes it was a "fucking huge news story" and it was relevant as it at least contributed to permanent Labor Party policy banning candidates from using social media.Merphee (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Then there will be no problems demonstrating notability. That's why shit like this is easy. If it deserves to be here, there will be sources. If there aren't, then it doesn't. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Oh please don't give him that tool. Yes, there are sources, just as there are heaps of sources for when our Prime Minister ate a raw onion. Notability is about more than sources. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Don't be ridiculous with the PM's raw onion he ate for lunch analogy. I haven't seen The Australian or the SMH or ABC or Herald Sun or Channel 9 news write extensive news stories on him eating an onion HiLo. Husar's FB deletions were notable however were reported on by several major sources and contributed to significant internal policy reform regarding candidate's use of social media prior to elections. This is why sources like The Australian and other major (non tabloid) newspapers covered the story. It is notable and it contributed to policy change. It should be included. Thanks Johnuniq for being independent in this discussion and relying on policy rather than whether or not an editor wants or likes an inclusion because it may or may not reflect poorly on a politician. I don't see anyone holding back or deleting sections from Donald Trump's article solely because it may reflect poorly on him.Merphee (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC) It certainly wasn't a "fucking huge news story" - it wasn't even a big story on the day it ran. One newspaper wrote one story, and then the local free weekly repeated it. Merphee makes continual claims of "several major sources" covering the story and has never been able to produce them, and claims that the Facebook posts "contributed to policy change" though this is not backed up in one single reliable source, period (apart from attempts at WP:SYNTH on Merphee's part). As has been pointed out ad infinitum, it isn't being removed because it may reflect poorly on anyone, it's being removed because it's utterly trivial. The difference between this and today's scandal about Husar (which certainly does reflect poorly on her) is that today's scandal is actually substantive - and that's why I added that to the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Merphee, I'm still interested in these " major (non tabloid) newspapers". The Australian is Murdoch, same as the Herald Sun (clearly a tabloid). Murdoch's stock in trade is writing negative articles on anyone but Liberal Party members. SMH is OK. Please find me those other independent newspapers. HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Please stop with the subjective stuff regarding Australian newspapers HiLo. That's your opinion only. I don't believe it and most Australians don't believe it. The Australian newspaper is used in most politicians and other notable Australian person's articles. Again you deflect. Nothing new to add.Merphee (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC) It didn't even get significant coverage in tabloid newspapers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC) What utter Rubbish. I provided many quality sources, you are just trying to muddy the water. The whole idea of reporting here is to get 'independent' opinions like Spacecowboy420. The 2 of you hold identical opinions which in this case are not based on policy. The section meets every policy criteria and should be included.Merphee (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC) You said "major (non tabloid) newspapers". Name them. Now. Here. And while you may like The Australian, most people who like it also acknowledge its right wing leanings. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC) The Australian newspaper for starters. Are you trying to tell me The Australian is not a reliable source?Merphee (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC) I shall just point you at The Australian#Editorial and opinion pages. It fits very well into the Murdoch stable. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Yes you wrote that section in The Australian article. I believe such massive statements like the one you wrote need to have reliable sources. Unfortunately the source you used was The Monthly which is a far, far left wing private magazine publication that is widely known to be heavily biased. Regardless my question is this. Is The Australian newspaper a reliable source to be used in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons articles. I have posted it at that noticeboard to get some independent opinions. There's not much use arguing with you HiLo as you don't seem to accept any content additions unless they are ideologically consistent with your point of view. I'd rather put it out there and collaborate to improve articles.Merphee (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Talking about me won't help your case. And suggesting I wrote that section of the article is ridiculous. The issue is not about BLP articles in general. It's how The Australian treats Labor pollies when compared with Liberal pollies. It would be quite naive to think they get equal treatment. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC) This whole discussion between you two about The Australian is pointless, because The Australian article doesn't remotely amount to substantive coverage: it's a list of politicians who've gotten into Facebook gaffes with a three-line bit about Husar. There is absolutely no basis for demanding inclusion on account of that utterly-in-passing reference, regardless of what anybody thinks about The Australian as a source. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC) This whole discussion is about you trying to censor these controversies from Labor and Greens politicians pages but then The Drovers Wife you insist the most ridiculous and poorly sourced crap is pushed into other right wing politicians articles like you did at David Leyonhjelm just to make them look bad. We need to be treating all articles equally and apply policy equally, not because of an allegiance to a particular party or ideology.Merphee (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC) No one is trying to censor any controversies. Actual negative stories (like the bullying scandal) go in, trivia goes out. David Leyonjhelm's comments made national news for some time and are still being referenced in mass media on nearly a daily basis now. These barely made the news on the one day they were covered. This is equality. People wanting to throw in whatever grab-bag of trivia they think is going to smear politicians they don't like is extremely frustrating - so those of us neutral editors have to clean up this stuff on Emma Husar's article at the same time as deal with exactly the same shenanigans being pulled on arch-conservative Marcus Bastiaan's article. And inevitably the people responsible claim that the people chopping the trivia about their pet targets are just wanting to hide the twooth. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC) It's fun to be accused of bias by supporters of both sides. It has happened to me every Australian election since I joined Wikipedia, and for US and UK elections as well. It's a fact I'm quite proud of. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Volunteer comment:This is too far gone for content DR. I recommend WP:BLPN to get more outside voices, although I fear WP:ANI is in the future. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Poisoning of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal#Suspected_perpetrators

– New discussion.

Filed by MartinezMD on 14:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal#Suspected perpetrators (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MartinezMD (talk · contribs)
• Dralgos (talk · contribs)
• Mock wurzel soup (talk · contribs)
• My very best wishes (talk · contribs)
• Nicoljaus (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement about listing suspected perpetrator in this high-profile poisoning. I am saying that Russia is the prime credible suspect. Editor DRALGOS states if we list Russia, we have to list US and British intelligence. I say that Russia's government has given a litany of alternate suspects, nice summary here - https://www.businessinsider.com/theories-russia-is-using-to-deflect-blame-for-sergei-skripal-attack-2018-3#11-non-state-actors-who-wanted-to-cause-an-international-scandal-did-it-11 and that their lack of consistency makes it not credible. This for me is an issue of undue weight, and other potential suspects are not equivalent.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have had numerous discussions. Many editors have make recurring edits to the susp perp parameter on the infobox. I believe that myself and DRALGOS are the primary editors with this issue and other editors having an opinion but being less verbal about it.

How do you think we can help?

I think a neutral outside party can look at the issue, give an opinion or potentially find a policy we've overlooked, to address the disagreement. I'd like the issue of potential undue weight addressed.

Summary of dispute by Dralgos

"Suspected Perpetrators" means there is no proof, so allowing the listing of some and not others can only be POV. Russia has claimed the UK to be suspects Source Source. I advocate this section remain deleted. DRALGOS ^♕ 15:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mock wurzel soup

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

"Suspected Perpetrators" has been removed from the infobox. I suggest we leave it that way. Wikipedia claims not to publish speculation and "suspected perpetrators" is speculation. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• User talk:Dralgos I agree, allowing the listing of some and not others can only be POV. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• User talk:My very best wishes The "Reliable Sources" are also publishing conspiracy theories because there is no evidence. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by My very best wishes

Please follow WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Nearly all independent RS tell that suspects were Russian agents. Other "versions" are conspiracy theories. In any event, I do not have a lot of time for that. My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Dismissing any theory besides "Russian agents" as "conspiracy theories" is not neutral. Your paragraph above contradicts itself, perhaps re-read WP:NPOV again? DRALGOS ^♕ 10:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nicoljaus

The investigation of this case is carried out by the British police. Russia did not open its own investigation. Officials in the UK can speak out about suspected_perpetrators, as they have access to the data of the investigation. Officials in Russia do not have legal access to the materials of the investigation and their statements do not have serious weight. So, the statements of the Russian side and the sources affiliated with them should not be treated on equal ground with the British ones.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep back-and-forth discussion to a minimum. Personal attacks are not permitted.Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Russia has tried to open its own investigation but the UK government has refused to co-operate and will not provide samples for analysis. The only reason Russia's "statements do not have serious weight" is obstruction by the UK government. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC) As a result, Russia has no access to the investigation data, as I say earlier. So, the statements of the Russian side and the sources affiliated with them should not be treated on equal ground with the British ones.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Very convenient for Russia-haters. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Well, sapienti sat.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC) "Enough has been said for the wise". Is this a hidden attempt to call me stupid? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Your words, not mine.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC) I'll take that as a "yes" and remind you of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Personal attacks here were only in my address.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC) What does that mean? Is it another hidden insult? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by

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

Talk:Poisoning of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal#Suspected_perpetrators discussion

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

My Korean Jagiya

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hotwiki on 08:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute My Korean Jagiya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hotwiki (talk · contribs) Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Spacecowboy420 keeps removing content from the cast section,which makes it very incomplete. He claims that not every character should be mentioned when I already argued that the cast list is already incomplete. He has not seen the show to claim who's not notable enough in the said show. Also claimed that "its a minor show" yet its a primetime show in a major broadcast network in the Philippines. Then he tagged the article for being a "fan site" and the article is not neutral - which in my opinion are both false. The article is so small and tone is neutral. I've already brought this up to Edit Warring and Third Opinion and got no response in resolving this. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page, edit summary, edit warring page, third opinion page How do you think we can help? Someone needs to step in. Summary of dispute by Spacecowboy420 We don't need two discussions on this. It takes as long as it takes, I'm guessing that spamming this board with multiple requests won't make anything happen quicker. My Korean Jagiya discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Andrew Jackson#Recent_edits

– New discussion.

Filed by Display name 99 on 12:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Andrew Jackson#Recent edits (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Display name 99 (talk · contribs)
• Historian7 (talk · contribs)
• Quarkgluonsoup (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Quarkgluonsoup made a series of edits to the Legacy section of the article. This editor changed some language and moved significant amounts of text from the main body to the footnotes section, all without explanation. In June, this same user had made similar language changes and not simply moved but deleted the text, also without providing an edit summary. This change was undone by a different user.

I reverted the most recent changes, but had my revert undone by Historian7. This user allowed me to restore the original language of the article but insisted that the text remain not in the body but in the footnotes section. I objected to this and, after a second revert of mine was undone, initiated a discussion on the talk page.

Historian7's arguments were that the text that was moved seemed "peculiar and bloggish" as well as "obviously superfluous." He noted that they were added relatively recently and said that they didn't seem to have consensus. I objected to this by pointing out that consensus is not necessarily needed before making a change to an article while further adding that this "obviously superfluous" text was approved during the article's FA review. Some of it was actually added during that time period at the request of a particular reviewer who thought the Legacy section should be expanded. In my opinion, moving some of the text from the Legacy section into the footnotes section makes the article confusing to navigate. It would be better just to delete it, even though I don't think that should happen either. Also, if the text was superfluous, it should've been deleted. It's all still there. It just looks awkward and confusing.

Quarkgluonsoup recently returned to the page. Without talk page discussion or even an edit summary justifying all of the specific changes, he re-added the language changes to the lead which I opposed and which Historian7 refused to support. I reverted this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There have been some reverts. I initiated a discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

It seems obvious that none of us are going to change our minds. I would appreciate someone making a determination based on their own judgment and the merits of our arguments.

Summary of dispute by Historian7

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

Summary of dispute by Quarkgluonsoup

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

Talk:Andrew Jackson#Recent_edits discussion

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

Update: Quarkgluonsoup recently re-added the language changes to the lead which I objected to on the grounds of inaccuracy. A discussion has been opened on the talk page. Display name 99 (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Backup#Third opinion

– New discussion.

Filed by DovidBenAvraham on 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Backup#Third opinion (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DovidBenAvraham (talk · contribs)
• JohnInDC (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Continuation of existing dispute, now over a footnote; look at "17:33, 14 July 2018" comment, then go to the "13:18, 18 July 2018" comment and keep reading through the "02:15, 22 July 2018" comment. The disagreement is about whether a two-sentence footnote—as revised in the "01:23, 22 July 2018" comment—whose first sentence does a routine calculation to reflect a source's written statement, and whose second sentence points out—using only a statement in that source and a statement in a preceding source—the reason why the two sources reach different conclusions, constitutes "buying advice" prohibited by some never-linked-to Wikipedia rule.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requested a second Third Opinion. Erpert suggested DRN.

How do you think we can help?

Is the proposed revised footnote per the "01:23, 22 July 2018" comment "an interpretive footnote explaining mathematically why ..., and ... an editor's narrative interpretation of material not expressly stated ..." (per John's "02:15, 22 July 2018" comment), or is "The first sentence ... a routine calc. entirely from the text of the ref" and "the second sentence ... merely complies with 'If equally reliable sources disagree, present all ... inform'n'" (per Dovid's "01:23, 22 July 2018" comment)?

Summary of dispute by DovidBenAvraham

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

Here's the more-coherent rewrite of the footnote that JohnInDC still objects to:

The third manufacturer reference cited in this sentence states that the 2010 industry average transport shock tolerance specification is drop-testing at a height of 36 inches (51 inches ÷ 140%) onto industrial carpeting. That contrasts with "You can do everything right with your drive, but drop it on a hard floor [emphasis added] as you pull it out of the safety deposit box, and like that, you’re off to the recovery service", which is the potential transport vulnerability in the PCWorld reference cited in the preceding sentence.

The first sentence in the rewrite is a routine calculation entirely from the text of the reference, which—as I have pointed out in my "04:09, 18 July 2018" comment—does not make it an inference according to WP rules. The second sentence in the rewrite highlights an apparent Conflict between sources, but I have not made a personal observation—merely complied with "If equally reliable sources disagree, present all of the information" accompanied by pointing out that the apparent disagreement results from two different definitions of drop testing. Note that I have made the first sentence of the rewrite klunkier by avoiding mention of the name Iomega as the author of the third reference; that should make scope_creep [another WP editor who thinks every mention of a manufacturer's name is advertising] happy.

Look at the last two or three sentences of the "Magnetic tape" and "Optical storage" and "Solid state storage" and "Remote backup service" paragraphs of this "Storage media" section of the article. Every one of those sentences is stating an advantage or a drawback of its particular type of storage media, and I didn't write those sentences. I split the former next-to-last sentence of the "Hard disk" paragraph because its existing "buying advice" was at least partially obsolete, but my new next-to-last sentence—which would end with the rewritten footnote—just presents the same kind of information that the equivalent sentences in the other paragraphs also present. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by JohnInDC

Here is the pertinent article text, showing the proposed footnote in context (I've stripped the wikilinks, and shorthanded the refs):

One main disadvantage of hard disk backups vis-a-vis tape are that they are potentially more easily damaged, especially while being transported (e.g., for off-site backups) <PC World ref>. However, as the technology of ramp loading and the accelerometer (sometimes termed a "shock sensor") has migrated over the last few years from laptop computers down to individual hard disks, three manufacturers' descriptions of their portable hard disk technology <Western Digital ref>, <Toshiba ref>, <Iomega ref> indicate that the transport vulnerability has been reduced.<proposed footnote here>

Note: The third manufacturer reference cited in this sentence states that the 2010 industry average transport shock tolerance specification is drop-testing at a height of 36 inches (51 inches ÷ 140%) onto industrial carpeting. That contrasts with "You can do everything right with your drive, but drop it on a hard floor [emphasis added] as you pull it out of the safety deposit box, and like that, you’re off to the recovery service", which is the potential transport vulnerability in the PCWorld reference cited by the preceding sentence.>

The footnote is arcane & confusing, excessively detailed, borderline OR and Synthesis, and does not further illuminate the text. The footnote is incoherent to anyone who doesn't delve into the references; and, anyone who does delve into them will find the information right at hand. The existing, unadorned references simply, and directly, support the article text, and do not need to be further interpreted, reconciled or explained by this note, or by any other.

These concerns are substantially the same as those I expressed to a disinterested editor in a recent Third Opinion review on a similar issue at the same article, see Talk:Backup#Third_opinion, which resulted in removal of the extraneous text. JohnInDC (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Backup#Third opinion discussion

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