Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 242
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 235 | ← | Archive 240 | Archive 241 | Archive 242 | Archive 243 | Archive 244 | Archive 245 |
David Lammy
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. An RFC is being used to resolve the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Boeing E-6B Mercury
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Boeing E-6 Mercury, only on a user talk page, and that discussion has has not been in complete paragraphs. Discussion should be on an article talk page, because sometimes third-party editors who are viewing the article talk page may have useful input. Discussion should continue for more than 24 hours, with at least two statements by each editor. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
2024 F1 Academy season
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed due to lack of notice. It is now 48 hours after I said that the filing editor had not notified the other editors. The instructions state that the filing editor should notify the other editors. This case is now closed. Continue discussion on the article talk page. Do not edit-war. If discussion is unsuccessful, consider the use of a neutrally worded RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. It appears that the discussion has only been by edit summaries, which are not real discussion. Discuss on the article talk page, Talk:Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz; that's what article talk pages are for. Do not edit-war. If discussion does not resolve the issue, a Third Opinion can be requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Eurovision Song Contest 2024
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as premature and inadequately filed. There does not appear to have been any discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Resume discussion on an article talk page or at WikiProject Eurovision. A new request can be filed if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, and if the editors are notified, but discussion is necessary before requesting assistance here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
East African Community
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed due to lack of notice. The filing editor has not notified the other editors, 48 hours after being advised to notify them. Notification of the other editors is not just a courtesy but a requirement. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Ilia Topuria
– Discussion in progress.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Nswix (talk · contribs)
- Cassiopeia (talk · contribs)
- DrakeXper (talk · contribs)
- Lemabeta (talk · contribs)
- Caucasian Man (talk · contribs)
- BasilE99 (talk · contribs)
- FCBWanderer (talk · contribs)
- WikiJuan (talk · contribs)
- Gsfelipe94 (talk · contribs)
- SpyroeBM (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Concerning the subjects nationality, he was born in Germany (which according to this doesn't entitle you to German nationality, we've all moved on from this a year ago). But where it gets tricky is he was raised in Georgia and claims to be a dual-citizen of Spain. But Spain doesnt allow dual citizenship for Georgian citizens. He fights out of Spain, wheres he's lived since he was 15 (so I vote that per MOS:NATIONALITY only list nationalities where subject established themselves). While others say he must be Georgian, because he walks out to compete under a Georgian flag. All of which is complicated by the fact that you can find sources that call him 'Georgian', 'Spanish', 'Spanish-Georgian', 'German-born Spanish-Georgian', etc.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Ilia Topuria#Nationality, Talk:Ilia Topuria#Citizenship
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Either tell us to use all, none or one of the nationalities
Summary of dispute by Cassiopeia
- Base on MOS:NATIONALITY guidelines, the subject current resident and citizen where he was notable should be on the LEAD section which is Spain and not other country where he was born (Germany doesnt allow dual citizenship) or Georgia where he lived from 7-15 y/o where Spain does have dual citizenship with Georgia. We have a lot of cases in mixed martial arts fighter whereby editors keep on changing subject countries in lead based on their ethnicity/bloodline/heritage/where their parents or which country(ies)/the whole world that the subject wanted to represent and not based on where they were born or where they lived when they are notable as per Wikipedia MOS:NATIONALITY guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 09:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Subject confirmed that he does not have Spanish citizenship:
- https://twitter.com/pelunaton/status/1760725558114275347
- So as per wikipedia guidlines he should be listed as Georgian only Caucasian Man (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by DrakeXper
Ilia Topuria doesn't have Georgian nationality. He officially has Spanish nationality and represents, as a UFC fighter, both Georgia and Spain.[1]
According to MOS:NATIONALITY, I think the correct way to resolve this discussion is:
- We affirm Topuria is of Spanish nationality, with mention that he is of Georgian origin/ethnicity.
- We eliminate nationality from the equation as it is controversial, and simply state on the lede that he is "a Georgian and Spanish professional mixed martial artist..." omitting the mention of "nationality" in the infobox.
DrakeXper (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Lemabeta
Both Georgia and Spain don't allow dual citizenship to each other, yet all the sources available claim that he has both Georgian and Spanish citizens. MOS:Nationality says that when there's a controversial or unclear cases nationality can be omitted, as shown in an example of Nicolaus Copernicus under MOS:Nationality. Therefore this(taking out Georgian or Spanish from the heading page) is one of the solution we can use to resolve this dispute.--Lemabeta (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Or an ethnicity can play a deciding factor as passport is unclear and be written as Georgian, until further clarification. Lemabeta (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Caucasian Man
First, he officially represents Georgia at the UFC. It is not just the flag, he is officially listed as Georgian in the UFC: https://www.espn.com/mma/fighter/_/id/4350812/ilia-topuria
Every source claims he holds dual citizenship. If we go with wikipedia guidelines, even if he only held Spanish citizenship, his origin is relevant as he became known as a Georgian fighter and represents his country of origin. That's what the wikipedia guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context say: "Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability" Due to the reasons mentioned above, that "unless" is relevant here and he must be listed as a Georgian, granted. Thus, we can list the subject as "Georgian" or "Georgian and Spanish". Can't live "Georgian" out.
Summary of dispute by BasilE99
Summary of dispute by FCBWanderer
Summary of dispute by WikiJuan
Summary of dispute by Gsfelipe94
Topuria should be listed as Georgian and a relevant mention for him being based on Spain should also be added. The matter of fact is that he's chosen to officially represent Georgia in UFC related issues (walkout gear and official info on the main media), but that doesn't stop him from also carrying his Spanish roots. We've had several fighters do it before and I'm pretty this would not be an issue if he was born there instead of Germany. What Cassiopeia brings to the table is an unidimensional view (just like she brought up when we had issues changing fighters' last names when they got married - luckily that's not an issue anymore), so I don't think we should list him as Spanish based on that. A good example for it is Diego Lopes who is a Brazilian fighter based in Mexico. We don't list him as Mexican based on what Cassiopeia said. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Gsfelipe94 I suggest you to read MOS:NATIONALITY. It is not about what country he wants to represents or his root. As per changing fighter names of the articles, I still stand by WP:COMMONNAME name to change the article names but not just because a subject married and automatically the subject name is changed, due to recent marriage and a small hand full of sources against 5 years of sources, as many editors (especially MMA editors do not understand the Wikipedia guidelines and do not care about Wikipedia guidelines) as they just want to edit which what seems to be reasonable of their standard but not per Wikipedia guidelines. It is tired and takes a lot of my time just to keep the guidelines stand against those editors who does not care about the guidelines - remember, after all this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia have guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 00:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Wikipedia has tools for situations like this, and one of them is MOS:NATIONALITY. DrakeXper (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Gsfelipe94 I suggest you to read MOS:NATIONALITY. It is not about what country he wants to represents or his root. As per changing fighter names of the articles, I still stand by WP:COMMONNAME name to change the article names but not just because a subject married and automatically the subject name is changed, due to recent marriage and a small hand full of sources against 5 years of sources, as many editors (especially MMA editors do not understand the Wikipedia guidelines and do not care about Wikipedia guidelines) as they just want to edit which what seems to be reasonable of their standard but not per Wikipedia guidelines. It is tired and takes a lot of my time just to keep the guidelines stand against those editors who does not care about the guidelines - remember, after all this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia have guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 00:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Gsfelipe94, the example you have given with Diego Lopes is not good for this case.
- Ilia Topuria officially only has Spanish nationality even though he is of Georgian origin/ethnicity. According to MOS:NATIONALITY, It should mention that he is of Spanish nationality or, in the worst case, avoid mentioning his nationality to avoid getting into controversies.
- But aside from all this, he declares himself Spanish and Georgian,[2] and the official UFC account uses both countries (Georgia and Spain) as representative countries.[3] DrakeXper (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- The Diego Lopes example was related to the subject current resident and citizen where he was notable as an unidimensional view. I'm not going to dwell on the other things because every single time we had those situations regarding names it was 1 against everyone else on the same type of behavior and the same arguments above where used (funny that in the end all the articles' titles were moved).
- And your example of a tweet wasn't good as well. Plenty of other fighters will fall into the same category (for example when they had Cain Velasquez with both the US and Mexico flags). I'd like to know where is the source that shows he only has Spanish nationality. That's the type of thing that ends discussions, though there's none of it here. It's just a bunch of suppositions as of now. If there's solid evidence of his nationality, then obviously everything else won't matter. I have no agenda whatsoever to list him as Georgian or Spanish. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- We know that he arrived in Spain when he was 15 years old, and that he became naturalized Spanish.
- Although sometimes It is stated that he is of dual nationality, actually, due to the context, what they are referring to is that he feels equally Georgian and Spanish. In the legal dimension, we know that Spain does not admit dual nationality with Georgia.
- In any case, and most importantly, if the nationality is way too controversial, according to MOS:NATIONALITY, we can omit "nationality" (from the infobox for example) and just say that he is a Georgian and Spanish fighter. Saying that Topuria is just a Georgian working or "based on Spain" is frankly quite incorrect in my opinion. DrakeXper (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the latter would be incorrect. I believe that the option of removing "nationality" would solve most of the problems or say that he's Spanish with Georgian heritage. What's confusing is that everything else is that he's always represented Georgia on his fight kits and the fact that he was born in a neutral country to that discussion makes matter worse.
- Like I said, Velasquez was 100% American, but he used to represent Mexico in several fights and was always listed as American at the stats. Clearance on this would be great to updated List of UFC Champions for example. As of now we have him listed as Georgian, but based on those arguments, he could be shifted to Spanish. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by SpyroeBM
I suggest that the nationality be omitted from the lede outright, there are no reliable and independent sources (using this list as a guideline) that state Topuria's nationality status, and I would be wary of Spanish sources due to bias unless they have been vetted by other editors. A solution to his would be to follow the lede format used by the editing team over at the football/soccer section of Wikipedia for players of dual or unknown nationality (e.g. Alphonso Davies, Diego Costa, Pepe and etc.), where the nationality part can be explained in a different paragraph. For a UFC related example, Khamzat Chimaev nationality was a big talking point, where we had some editors (and for the sake of honesty myself included) go under the assumption that he was only Swedish and should be listed as such; albeit it was later revealed that he never acquired said citizenship and had only been representing Sweden. Due to the precedence of this issue, I suggest for neutrality and for the sake of not being controversial, the nationality should not be made a focal point in the lede. SpyroeBM (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Upon further research (a total of 5 minutes), Topuria's nationality has been highlighted as the following; Sky Sports and Jack Baer of Yahoo News has listed Topuria as a Spaniard[6][7] while the editing team at ABC News Australia and Marc Raimondi of ESPN highlight that he is a Georgian living and training in Spain, with special attention to Raimondi's quotation as "Topuria was born in Germany to parents of Georgian descent. His family moved back to the Republic of Georgia when he was young then later to Alicante, Spain. Topuria lives and trains in Spain -- his nickname is "El Matador" -- but also represents Georgia."[8][9] With the ambiguity of his nationality sourced with material vetted on Wikipedia source list, his nationality should be explained in a separate paragraph, while I stand by my original point that the lede should not include nationality. SpyroeBM (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Ilia Topuria discussion
Zeroth statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)
I will open this case for preliminary discussion, for the purpose of starting a neutral Request for Comments to resolve the matter of the nationality or nationalities to list for the subject. This case involves a contentious topic, because it involves nationalities in Eastern Europe, which includes all of those countries that were under Soviet domination in the late twentieth century. For this reason, we will use DRN Rule D, so that by agreeing to the rule, the editors have received notice of contentious topic procedures. Do the editors agree that they want moderator assistance, which will consist mostly of formulating an RFC? What does each editor say should be listed as the nationality of the subject? Are there any other article content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)
First statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)
Apparently some of you didn't read my zeroth statement, which said that we will be using DRN Rule D, or you read it but didn't read the rules, or you read the rules and decided not to agree to the rules. Read the rules again if you want to use this noticeboard. The rules say not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. You are to answer questions from the moderator (me) and address your answers to the moderator and the community. I will collapse any further back-and-forth discussion, and I may (at my discretion) close this case, in which case you will be able to continue back-and-forth discussion that is not getting anywhere. So read and follow the rules.
If you want assistance, I will ask questions in order to formulate a neutrally worded Request for Comments. So my first question is whether the content disagreement is about the infobox, or the lede sentence, or both. There should not be an argument about the body of the article, because the body of the article should explain in sufficient detail. My second question is: What do you want listed in the infobox as his nationality? My third question is: What do you want stated in the lede sentence as his nationality?
This case involves a contentious topic, because it involves nationalities in Eastern Europe, which includes all of those countries that were under Soviet domination in the late twentieth century.
Fourth, are there any other article content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Answer to:
- First question: Both
- Second question: Either eliminate the "nationality" section of the infobox, or mention both (Georgian and Spanish)
- Third question: Maintain the claim that he is "Georgian and Spanish", and remove the current unnecessary and controversial claim that as a UFC fighter only represents Georgia.
- Fourth question: There isn't as far as I can tell. DrakeXper (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)
Second statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)
It is not clear that we need an RFC. It appears that we may have agreement that the lede sentence should say that he is a Georgian fighter living in Spain, and that the infobox should list his nationality as Georgian and Spanish. If not, what does anyone else want the lede paragraph and the infobox to say? If an editor has a different opinion, then we probably do need an RFC, and, if so, please state what else the choices should include when I put together the RFC.
Are there any other article content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- this came out today, where he says (in Spanish) that he doesnt have Spanish nationality, so I change my stance and say we all drop it and list him as Georgian. Nswix (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly like Khamzat Chimaev when we thought he had Swedish citizenship but turned out he didn't. So yes, based on Wikipedia guidelines, we can remove Spanish altogether and list him as Georgian. I agree. Caucasian Man (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)
Third statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)
Is there agreement that he should be listed as Georgian, or do we need an RFC? If you have not already said that he should be listed as Georgian, please answer how you think he should be listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)
Fourth statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)
If no one disagrees, I will close this case as Resolved, and we will have agreed that we will list him as Georgian. If there is disagreement, please state it below, and there will be an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- New update, today he was granted Spanish citizenship, so I change my vote back to Spanish and Georgian Nswix (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)
Fifth statement by moderator (Ilia Topuria)
Please look at the draft RFC at Talk:Ilia Topuria/RFC on Nationality . Does anyone have any comments about the draft RFC before it is moved to the talk page and activated? Please do not enter your statements at this time, because this is a draft until it is moved and activated.
Does anyone have any questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Ilia Topuria)
India
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
| | Closed. There were various problems with this filing. However, it isn't necessary to explain them in detail, because the filing editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The issue is actually about mass deletion of India's train pages, preferably-Shatabdi, Jan Shatabdi, Tejas, Rajdhani, Duronto, Humsafar, Uday, Vande Bharat, Antyodaya, Amrit Bharat, AC Express which are as good as a railway information website providing info of their timings, coaches etc in every pages. Rather making seperate pages of each service, one can make all collective services of those specific trains in one table similar to Vande Bharat Express *Services* section. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[3]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The resolution should be that to permanently delete all the Shatabdi, Rajdhani, Tejas, Duronto, Uday, Antyodaya, Humsafar, Jan Shatabdi, Vande Bharat, Amrit Bharat, AC Express service articles and place like table form adding all services just like done in vande bharat service section removing all the links while placing their table form. Summary of dispute by Arnav BhatePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MPGuy2824Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
India discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Draft:Tristan Tate
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Mr vili (talk · contribs)
- PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs)
- Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
I'm contesting the refusal to move a Wikipedia article about Tristan Tate to the main namespace, arguing that he meets notability criteria through significant media coverage, his accomplishments as a kickboxing champion, his reality TV appearance, and his extremely high profile criminal case.
Despite presenting various sources to establish his notability independently of his brother Andrew Tate, editor PARAKANYAA disputes the reliability and sufficiency of these sources, labeling many as unreliable and not indicative of standalone notability. My suggestion to resolve the issue through a community "Articles for Deletion" (AfD) discussion has been met with resistance, leading to a deadlock over the article's eligibility for mainspace, prompting me to seek dispute resolution to evaluate the article's merit for inclusion based on Wikipedia's notability standards.
I have done research to find notable sources with WP:SIGCOV, which have all referenced him in significance
- The Independent (UK)
- The Hindustan Times
- Essentially Sports
- Sidekick Boxing
- Sportsbrief
- Sportsrush
- Accumulate.com.au
- BBC News
- Reuters
- The Chess Drum
- Various Romanian news outlets
- Storm Gym
- MoneyMade.io
And so many more sources that you can find via a simple google search
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Ideally, I would like the article to be moved to mainspace and immediately go through an AfD to settle the matter.
Summary of dispute by PARAKANYAA
I stand by my opinion that the sources that primarily address Tristan Tate are unreliable or passing mentions. What does address him in depth is solely in reference to the crime case his brother is involved in. The purpose of AfC is to approve articles into main space that the reviewer perceives as having a greater than 50% chance at surviving at AfD: I see virtually no chance this would. Also, I wasn't the first person to decline the draft and I didn't reject it, so he could have simply asked someone else (who would have likely said the same thing). This feels unnecessary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Robert McClenon
First, DRN is not a forum for disputes over the acceptance of drafts. They can be discussed at the AFC Help Desk or the Teahouse. Second, I cannot act as a moderator or mediator in this dispute, because I am involved, having previously commented on the draft. I observed that there was a history of sockpuppetry about drafts and articles about Tristan Tate, and that a reviewer should check whether edits to the drafts were made by sockpuppets or by good-faith editors. Third, I am willing to ignore the rule that drafts should only be accepted if the reviewer thinks that there is more than a 50% chance of surviving AFD, because the current editor is proposing that the draft be moved into article space for the purpose of a deletion discussion. It is my opinion that the interests of the encyclopedia will be advanced by a deletion discussion. So, if the filing editor wants to have a deletion discussion, and resubmits the draft for review, I will accept the draft so that it can be nominated for deletion, which will resolve the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- I completely agree with this assessment. I believe there is zero risk in moving the draft into mainspace for the purpose of undergoing an AfD. I am not attached with the outcome, but to say it has "virtually no chance" it would survive is somewhat absurd and biased.
- I will resubmit the article for review Mr Vili talk 23:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon The article has been re-submitted Mr Vili talk 23:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- User:Mr vili - The article has been accepted, and is now in article space, so that there can be a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon can we archive/close this dispute as it is now going through AfD which should be the final step in this process. Mr Vili talk 11:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Tristan Tate discussion
Age of Mythology
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as premature. The discussion on the article talk page has not been in progress for 24 hours. Sometimes continued discussion is useful. Also, the filing editor has not notified the other editors. Please resume discussion at the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive after 24 hours, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Montacute House
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as resolved. After discussion, it has been agreed to use a small infobox that will not be collapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 infobox of Montacute House is currently partially collapsed. I believe that it should not be based on MOS:COLLAPSE, which states that 'collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading.' It additionally states that 'a few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed details' and that 'if information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all.' I do not believe that either of these passages apply to this infobox, as the Template:Infobox historic site is used on many similar articles and, as far as I'm aware, this article, Little Moreton Hall, and (until recently) Rufford Old Hall are the only cases in which the infobox has been partially collapsed. This suggests an informal consensus that the collapsed parameters are not generally considered infrequently accessed or trivial. Other editors have opposed this, preferring to keep the infobox collapsed. I won't speak for them, but I believe their positions are largely based on this 2009 discussion, in which a collapsed infobox was a compromise.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? The issue has been discussed extensively at Talk:Montacute House#Infobox collapse. I also opened a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:COLLAPSE, and have publicised both. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Clarification on how the MOS should be applied in this case would be helpful. Summary of dispute by NikkimariaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Murgatroyd49Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JohnbodPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by KJP1Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Unproductive, time-consuming and divisive edit wars over infoboxes have been ongoing since I joined in 2007. The MoS says, "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". The local consensus agreed at Montacute House, to use a collapsed infobox, has prevailed for 15 years. User:A.D.Hope's determination to overturn that consensus, pursued here, here, and now here, would re-ignite, rather than end, that debate, as we would then revert to the 2009 argument over whether to have an infobox at all. I have no wish to personalise this content dispute, but the filer's actions here follow a pattern, which has relevance. Examples include: Royal standards of Canada, forfeited honours, the Cornish flag and images of Essex. In each case, the issue is predicated on an interpretation of MoS, but in each case, the behaviour displayed is a determination to gain their point, and a refusal to acknowledge other views/interpretations. My suggested resolutions are that the prevailing consensus at Montacute House continues, and that the filer reflect on whether raising repeated RfCs, or continuing with their high-quality content contributions, is of greater benefit to Wikipedia's users. KJP1 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by AdamBlack89Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I really can’t be arsed to play with bad losers! This has been discussed ‘ad nauseam’ elsewhere. AdamBlack89 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by EPEAviatorPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by The Lady Catherine de Burgh
Summary of dispute by RodwI objected to the removal of the infobox in 2009, and accepted the collapsed version as a compromise with those who did not want it included at all. I continue to support including the information provided in the infobox for those that wish to be able to access this information quickly.— Rod talk 09:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Montacute House discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Montacute House)I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two editors request a moderator, and agree to DRN Rule A. Some editors have not replied yet, and should reply to this statement if they wish to participate in discussion. Some editors have declined to take part in discussion. (We will not pay anyone for their opinion. Paid editing is discouraged in Wikipedia.) Two editors have correctly quoted two of the rules in DRN Rule A, so I will not repeat the rules, but I will ask the editors to state that they agree to the rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article in the encyclopedia, so the first step is to identify the scope of the content disagreement. I understand that one of the issues has to do with the infobox. We can discuss infobox issues and any other article content issues. Each editor who wishes to take part in this discussion is asked to make an introductory statement, which should state what they want to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Montacute House)
First statement by moderator (Montacute House)I have read the background of this dispute, and I am changing the rules to DRN Rule D, because this is a dispute about an infobox, and infoboxes are a contentious topic, as found by the ArbCom in the second infobox case. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. You probably knew that, but it requires restating, because some editors are not civil in infobox discussions. It appears that this dispute has been simmering for fifteen years. On the one hand, I see nothing in either the MOS or the ArbCom decisions that says that a collapsed infobox may be used as a compromise. On the other hand, I see nothing in either the MOS or the ArbCom decisions that says that a collapsed infobox may not be used as a compromise. It seems to me like the most unsatisfactory compromise, used because it makes all of the parties equally unhappy. I am asking each editor to state whether they think that the article should or should not have an infobox, if those are the only two choices. (A collapsed infobox is not a choice for this purpose.) If this dispute cannot be resolved by discussion, it will be resolved by a Request for Comments. It does not appear that there has been an RFC. It appears that in 2009 normal discussion led to an impasse, but with no attempt to use an RFC to bring in additional editors followed by formal closure. So please state your opinion as to whether there should be an infobox. These statements will be preliminary to an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Montacute House)
Second statement by moderator (Montacute House)Some editors have expressed concerns that an RFC will not be adequately participated in, but that it will be a divisive timesink. I don't know of another way to resolve the infobox dispute over this article, which has been going on since 2009. Do the editors have another suggestion for how to resolve this ongoing disagreement? If the editors want me to choose one of the choices, either an infobox or no infobox, I will not make that choice. DRN is not content arbitration. I am again asking the editors to identify any other content issues that they wish to discuss, besides the infobox. If the pro-infobox editors wish to resolve the dispute, they can agree that the article does not need an infobox. If the anti-infobox editors wish to resolve the dispute, they can agree that the infobox summarizes content and is useful for casual readers. If an editor is negative about an RFC on an infobox, they can propose an alternate solution to the controversy, or can withdraw their "side" from discussion. I have read the guideline on collapsing, and I do not see collapsing an infobox listed as a compromise between pro-infobox and anti-infobox factions. Evidently at least some editors think that the status quo of a collapsed infobox is undesirable. Any editor who does not want an RFC is invited to offer an alternative. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Montacute House)
Third statement by moderator (Montacute House)I am providing a section for back-and-forth discussion about a compromise on a stripped-down infobox. I am also asking each editor who supports an infobox to state what they think is the minimum that they want in the infobox, and each editor who opposes an infobox to state what, if anything, they are willing to accept as a compromise. You may make these statements either as statements to the community (no back-and-forth responses) or back-and-forth statements. If back-and-forth discussion becomes repetitive, I will stop it and resume normal procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Montacute House)Fourth statement by moderator (Montacute House)Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Remember that the purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, and in this case to improve the infobox by agreeing on a compromise. Are the editors at or near agreement about the infobox? If not, will an RFC be needed? Are there any other content-related questions or issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Montacute House)
Fifth statement by moderator (Montacute House)Do the editors taking part in this discussion agree that the consensus is no infobox? Do the editors taking part in this discussion agree that the consensus is a small infobox? If we have agreement on either of these alternatives, we will close this discussion. Otherwise, we will resort to an RFC. Are there any other questions about content at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Montacute House)
Sixth statement by moderator (Montacute House)Do the editors taking part in this discussion agree that the consensus is a small infobox? The exact content of the infobox can be decided by normal editing. If there is no disagreement, I will close this discussion as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Montacute House)
Back-and-forth discussion (Montacute House)
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Boeing 737 MAX
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as probably resolved by talk page discussion. If there are any remaining issues, continue discussion at the article talk page. A new thread can be opened here after lengthy and inconclusive discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Russo-Ukrainian War
– Discussion in progress.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Pofka (talk · contribs)
- Mzajac (talk · contribs)
- Slatersteven (talk · contribs)
- Parham wiki (talk · contribs)
- RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk · contribs)
- Cinderella157 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Hello, I and others attempted to reach a WP:Consensus regarding the role of Belarus in the article Russo-Ukrainian War, but the issue is quite complicated and requires a strong, broad and long-term WP:Consensus. I think that in the infobox (and elsewhere in this article) Belarus should be described as a "co-belligerent" or as "Supported by" in the side of Russia in this war (e.g. like that) because of Belarus exceptional role in this war which is already more than just "Supplied by" (e.g. military hardware to Russia).
The role of Belarus in this war is exceptional because during the highly intensified phase of this war since 24 February 2022 (see: Russian invasion of Ukraine), the Russian Army forces were allowed to: 1) invade Ukraine from the Belarusian territory through ground (1, 2); 2) Russian jets have taken off from Belarus (from Belarusian airbases) to subsequently enter Ukraine from Belarusian airspace (3); 3) Belarus allowed Russia full access to its military airbases for Russian military aircraft to launch aircraft and its army installations to shoot artillery and missiles from Belarusian territory towards Ukraine (4, 5); 4) see more info here: Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, although no evidence was collected that the Armed Forces of Belarus themselves invaded Ukraine (which would make Belarus a full belligerent in this war), the role of Belarus is clearly not equal to other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Germany to Ukraine; Iran/North Korea to Russia) because they have never allowed to use their territories for direct military actions against Ukraine/Russia (and their armies), while Belarus allowed to do that.
Many sources describe Belarus as a "co-belligerent" in this war: Institute for the Study of War (6, 7), Ukrainian sources (8, 9), and others (e.g. 10, 11).
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
- Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#Belligerents: supported by Belarus (the latest discussion about the role of Belarus where no consensus was reached; started in November 2023)
- Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive 20#Belarus' involvement (discussion about the role of Belarus in this war; started in March 2022)
- Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive 18#Belarus as a direct participant of the war in the first sentence (discussion about the role of Belarus in this war; started in February 2022)
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I think that a qualified help is necessary to start a broad WP:RFC discussion (by informing as many users as possible through Wiki projects, etc.) and reach a WP:CONS. I believe that in the upcoming RFC other users should be informed about my arguments provided here in the "Dispute overview" section. To simplify the upcoming RFC voting, I think that the users should be given three options regarding the role of Belarus: A) Co-belligerent; B) Supported by; C) Supplied by.
Summary of dispute by Mzajac
Summary of dispute by Slatersteven
At its heart, the issue really is not about Belarus, but attempts to claim parity with NATO.
Belarus allowed Russian forces to launch attacks from its soil but did not (as far as I am aware) participate. As such it both did more and less than just supplying arms. This creates a rather odd situation where they are not (technically) a belligerent but also are not uninvolved. Thus is seems that they need a middle-ground approach. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Parham wiki
Summary of dispute by RadioactiveBoulevardier
I doubt that another round of discussions will forge a clearer consensus at this time, despite the passage of some real time and the topic-banning of a major and…polarizing contributor. I think Slatersteven is right about “wait for the historians” (which means big thick hardcover books of sober analysis, not ideology-laced works like those of Timothy Snyder and the infelicitously named Serhii Plokhy).
It sounds like Pofka wants Belarus listed as a co-belligerent. This is, as Cinderella157 said, WP:EXCEPTIONAL (since the term has a specific formal definition). The term has occasionally been bandied about by biased sources like our old friends at ISW (which is, last I checked, still a post-neocon Washington think tank) and stuff but it would be functionally equivalent to listing Belarus along with Russia with no caveats.
This possibility was at multiple points raised by Mzajac and, unlike the use of “supported by” to represent Belarus’ unique status during the initial invasion, was not endorsed by a plurality.
On other pages I’ve already stated quite a lot (although by the metrics a fraction of the amount several others have written). I don’t see the point in rehashing old arguments when diffs are forever.
In fact, I would like to continue the slow fade from talk pages in this topic area. I have better things to do –having already fallen down the rabbit hole that is EE studies at college, I don’t feel like being contrarian and realistic is consistent anymore with the part of me that enjoys sipping tea with cute refugees and erudite dissidents.
I hope some of this late-night stream-of-consciousness has been helpful to the DR process. While I’m not leaving RUSUKR entirely, I’ve pretty much had more than enough of the talk page atmosphere.
Summary of dispute by Cinderella157
Slatersteven summarises the situation quite well. The evidence omits where Pofka added Belarus to the infobox under the heading of Co-belligerence. It was deleted by me with the summary: A WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. The status of belligerence is not supported by the body of the article per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE
. There is nuance to co-belligerence here. It is not consistent with the usual meaning - engaged in the fighting. From the discussions, there is clearly no appetite to add Belarus to the infobox as a co-belligerent because it is too nuanced in this instance. Supported by is depricated unless there is an affirmative consensus (RfC) to use it as in Russian invasion of Ukraine. As Russian invasion of Ukraine is a daughter article, of the Russo-Ukrainian War, I am in two minds that the RfC at the invasion article supports inclusion in the war article but other editors have indicated the need for a separate RfC in recent discussions. That is fine. Just start the RfC using the RfC at the invasion article as the template. On a side note, Supplied by in the war article is clearly and end-around the deprecation of "supported by", contrary to the spirit and intent of the RfC deprecating "supported by". It should be removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, the first question is whether Belarus should be listed at all. The second is how. But the distinction might be moot. My observation is that an RfC to list Belarus under "supported by" would likely gain consensus. An RfC with multiple options would likely result in "no consensus" just because that is commonly how non-binary RfCs conclude. A binary RfC for anything other than "supported by" will not, in my considered opinion, result in "consensus for". This seems to me to be an unusual DR, since the solution is evident - an RfC. It appears to be a case of asking advice on what the RfC should ask, when this usually occurs through TP discussion. My advice is to make an RfC to list Belarus under "supported by". It is better to go with the flow than to try to push shit up-hill with a pointy stick. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Russo-Ukrainian War discussion
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian War)
I am ready to act as the moderator for discussion that may lead to an RFC. We will use DRN Rule D because this dispute involves a contentious topic. Some topic areas in Wikipedia are subject to battleground editing because they have been real battlegrounds in the past. Eastern Europe has been a battleground too many times in the past century and is the bloodiest battleground of the twenty-first century. If you agree to take part in this discussion, you are agreeing that Eastern Europe is a contentious topic.
Are there any questions other than how Belarus should be listed? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Ukrainian War)
Zeroth statement by Pofka
@Robert McClenon: Yes, I fully agree that this contentious topic is highly problematic due to likely disruptive editing and that is why I have requested assistance to reach a long-standing WP:CONS about the role/status of Belarus in this war in order to prevent battleground editing in this article in the future. Currently, I have no additional questions to you Robert.
By the way, in June 2023 Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed that "the only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014
" (see: full article), which makes it clear that Lukashenko also tractate the current Ukraine as the enemy of Belarus and seeks for Ukraine's defeat militarily (clearly acting as co-belligerent). I think "co-belligerent" is a suitable middle ground approach for Belarus between belligerents (Russia and Ukraine) and military suppliers (United States, France, Germany, Iran, North Korea, etc.). -- Pofka (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
One editor has made a statement and thinks that Belarus should be listed as a co-belligerent. There was an opening comment that Belarus should be listed as providing support. If there are no other viewpoints presented, the RFC will ask the community whether to list Belarus as providing support or as a co-belligerent.
Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Ukrainian War)
First statement by Cinderella157
A proposed RfC must explicitly state something to effect: "Should Belarus be listed in the belligerent section of the info box with Russia: a) no, b) without qualification, c) under a heading of Co-belligerent, or d) under a heading supported by".
To choice a), listing Belarus as providing support or as a co-belligerent is not actually a binary question. Belarus is not listed at present. Continuing to not list it is an option.
To choice b) where multiple belligerents are listed in the same column of the infobox, they are ipso facto co-belligerents, by which, listing Belarus under an explicit heading of "co-belligerent" is redundant, if not ambiguous.
Trying to list Belarus under an explicit heading of co-belligerent is ambiguous and would attempt to convey nuance for which the infobox is totally unsuited. Such a proposal will (in my humble and experienced opinion) be shot down in flames faster than a SCUD missile heading for Jerusalem. If Pofka wants to continue to push this uphill with a pointy stick, then all I can say is knock your socks off (ie - go ahead). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
Is there agreement that the RFC should state something to effect: "Should Belarus be listed in the belligerent section of the info box with Russia: a) no, b) without qualification, c) under a heading of Co-belligerent, or d) under a heading supported by".?
Are there any other proposals for what the RFC should ask? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Ukrainian War)
Second statement by Pofka
@Robert McClenon: I mostly agree with the upcoming RFC voting choices suggestion described in your second statement (according to Cinderella157's first statement above), but I think that Belarus should be described as "co-belligerent" not only in the infobox of this article, but elsewhere in the article as well (otherwise it would likely violate infobox guidelines). Moreover, I repeat once again that information and sources from my initial statement ("Dispute overview" section) should be also provided in the upcoming RFC (before these a, b, c, d voting choices) because many users-voters might not be fully familiar with the role of Belarus in this war and why it is significantly different from other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Iran). Here is how I think the RFC should look like:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
This RFC was initiated because it is necessary to reach a strong WP:CONS in article Russo-Ukrainian War regarding the role of Belarus in this war.
The role of Belarus in this war is quite exceptional because during the highly intensified phase of this war since 24 February 2022 (see: Russian invasion of Ukraine) the Russian Army forces were allowed to: 1) invade Ukraine from the Belarusian territory through ground (1, 2); 2) Russian jets have taken off from Belarus (from Belarusian airbases) to subsequently enter Ukraine from Belarusian airspace (3); 3) Belarus allowed Russia full access to its military airbases for Russian military aircraft to launch aircraft and its army installations to shoot artillery and missiles from Belarusian territory towards Ukraine (4, 5); 4) see more information in dedicated article: Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Consequently, although no evidence was collected that the Armed Forces of Belarus themselves invaded Ukraine (which would possibly make Belarus a full belligerent in this war), the role of Belarus is possibly not equal to other military suppliers (e.g. United States/Germany to Ukraine; Iran/North Korea to Russia) because they have never allowed to use their territories for direct military actions against Ukraine/Russia (and their armies), while Belarus allowed to do that. Moreover, in June 2023 Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed that "the only mistake we made’ was not finishing off Ukraine with Russia in 2014" (see: full article). Popular sources already describe Belarus as a "co-belligerent" in this war: Institute for the Study of War (6, 7), Ukrainian sources (e.g. 8, 9), and others (e.g. 10, 11). Please provide your opinion how Belarus should be described in article Russo-Ukrainian War (in the infobox and elsewhere in this article where events since 24 February 2022 related with Belarus are described): |
@Cinderella157: @RadioactiveBoulevardier: what do you think about such RFC text suggested by me above? -- Pofka (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
I have created a draft RFC for review, at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/RFC on Listing of Belarus. Please review and comment on it. It is not an active RFC, and has tags to deactivate it until it is moved to the article talk page. Do not !vote in it. Comment on it here, not in it.
Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Ukrainian War)
Third statement by Pofka
@Robert McClenon: If you think that a more extensive explanation why the role of Belarus is likely exceptional in this war should not be included, then I think the RFC draft (Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/RFC on Listing of Belarus) should be at least modified like that: "Should Belarus be listed in the infobox (and accordingly described in other parts of the article concerning the events since 24 January 2024)
: (a). no (as at present); (b) as supported by; (c) as a co-belligerent; (d) without qualification?" The RFC should not be simplified only towards the infobox but must cover the whole article because with the provided RFC draft of yours, Robert, we will most likely be voting to violate/ignore WP:INFOBOX guidelines or no because information provided in the infobox must be described in the body of the article as well. We cannot vote to whenever describe Belarus as a co-belligerent in the infobox only, but not elsewhere in the article, so I disagree with your currently proposed RFC draft, Robert. Please add my suggested green text with a wiki link to article Russian invasion of Ukraine to RFC draft and then I will support it. -- Pofka (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Ukrainian War)
User:Pofka - Please do not attribute positions to the moderator or lecture the moderator. I have no specific desire to present the role of Belarus in this war as exceptional. I think that you do, and I am trying to work to ask the community if they agree with you. If you want to help me help you, you can do it by not being harsh in your correction.
I have revised the draft RFC in accordance with your comments, and am now asking you and the other editors to comment further on whether it is ready to go live. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Ukrainian War)
Fourth statement by Pofka
@Robert McClenon: Sorry if I sounded harsh. I was just trying to explain how I think the question in the upcoming RFC should be presented. I fully agree with the updated RFC draft, but I think there is a grammatic mistake with that dot between "in the infobox. and accordingly". Shouldn't it be a comma or brackets? -- Pofka (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Heiner Rindermann
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as already pending in another forum, the biographies of living persons noticeboard. DRN does not accept a dispute that is already pending in another forum. Taking a dispute from one noticeboard to another noticeboard in Wikipedia is known as telling the other parent and is strongly discouraged. Continue discussion at BLPN. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dragon
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed due to lack of notice, and as incorrectly filed. The editor who filed this case was logged out at the time, probably by accident, and did not notify the other editor. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case request can be filed; the filing editor should be logged in, and must notify the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
MP4 file_format
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as failed. I sort of thank User:Ftrebien for reporting that there had been edit-warring of the statements by the editors. DRN Rule A and its siblings don't say not to rearrange statements by editors, because I didn't think of making a rule. I probably will add such a prohibition to the rulesets. It is unfortunately clear to me that the editors are not taking part in moderated discussion constructively. I don't monitor user talk pages of editors, and didn't notice a long exchange between two editors, which wasn't collaborative. I am failing this discussion. There are two remaining avenues for dispute resolution, which are not mutually exclusive. A Request for Comments can be used. That is the alternative that may improve the encyclopedia. A report can be made to WP:ANI. That is the alternative to stop conduct that interferes with improving the encyclopedia. If there is an RFC, it should be neutrally worded. An editor should read the boomerang essay before reporting to WP:ANI. This moderated discussion has failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Turkey
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as declined. Two of the editors who have been notified have declined to participate at this time in DRN, which is voluntary. Continue discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Rio Grande 223
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed for now as inadequately filed. The filing editor has not included the other editor in the list of parties and has not notified them, although they have named them. Also, it appears that two other editors have now made comments on the article talk page. So, for now, the editors should discuss on the article talk page, and are reminded to be civil, and to comment on content, not contributors. If discussion including the new editors remains inconclusive in 48 hours, a new case request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Telegram
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as this is not the proper venue to appeal Ukrainian Wikipedia blocks or any Wikipedia blocks for that matter. The editor in question should file appeals following the procedure outlined to them when they were blocked in that wiki. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 23:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Sweet Baby Inc.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed. I am closing this case as also pending in another forum, WP:AN. It has not been taken to WP:AN by any of the participants, but there is discussion at WP:AN, and they have imposed ECP on the talk page as well as the article. I will make a note at WP:AN that consideration was given to opening a thread here, but that I am deferring to the admins at WP:AN, at least until they have the off-wiki canvassing sized up. Please use good judgment. Be civil and concise. When the AN case is resolved, if there is a content dispute, it can be brought here, and will be discussed under DRN Rule D. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|