Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Button rediriger.png 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?

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.
  • 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.
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.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page 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) and the bot will archive it soon after.
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.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Talk:Public forum_debate#What_constitutes_excessive_detail? Closed Cut card (t) 27 days, 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 14 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 14 hours
2019 World Rally Championship In Progress Mclarenfan17 (t) 12 days, 15 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 2 hours
Talk:The Red_Tent_(film) Closed Goochelaar (t) 11 days, 6 hours Robert McClenon (t) 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 23 hours
Talk:Young Living#Prohibited_marketing_claims New Alweth (t) 7 days, 15 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 1 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 1 hours
User talk:CordialGreenery Closed CordialGreenery (t) 7 days, 10 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 days, 18 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 days, 18 hours
Talk:Neurodiversity#Criticism section Closed Sleeplessbooks (t) 4 days, 13 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 16 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 16 hours
User talk:Beyond_My_Ken#BEN_SHAPIRO Closed ImmortalWizard (t) 3 days, Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 17 hours
Talk:Art Deco Closed 95.180.55.184 (t) 2 days, 6 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 1 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 1 hours
Talk:Haze (band)#External_links Closed 84.46.53.0 (t) 2 days, 6 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 2 hours
Talk:Happy Science New Sorunikusu (t) 2 days, 6 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 1 hours Bonadea (t) 2 hours
University of Pennsylvania - Evolution from a Commuter School to a Residential University New Wa3frp (t) 1 days, 16 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 2 hours
Same-sex marriage New Kwamikagami (t) 1 days, 15 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 1 hours Chipmunkdavis (t) 3 hours
Conspiracy theory New Autonova (t) 1 days, 10 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 1 hours Beyond My Ken (t) 26 minutes
Talk:Alternative medicine Closed Mattpeck (t) 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 22 hours Robert McClenon (t) 22 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 DRN clerk bot (talk) at 20:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)



Contents

Current disputes[edit]

Talk:Public forum_debate#What_constitutes_excessive_detail?[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Cut card on 17:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC).

2019 World Rally Championship[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Mclarenfan17 on 04:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys[edit]

I must apologise for going over 2000 characters. There are a few issues at hand here and some require explanation. I believe that the entry list should be condensed down to a single table for the following reasons:

  1. The purpose of the entry list is for entries. Eligibility to score manufacturer points is only a secondary concern. There is another table in the article that details which manufacturers scored points and where. To split the entry list is a case of over-design.
  2. The entry list does not provide details of every single entrant in the World Rally Championship—just the entrants in World Rally Cars (you will note that Yoann Bonato is listed in the drivers' championship table but not in the entry list; this is because he was entered in another championship first). This decision was made because entry lists for individual events can have up to 90 entries, most of which will only contest one round in non-World Rally Car entires. In the interests of brevity and relevance, the decision was taken to limit the entry list to WRC entries. Splitting the table effectively creates three lists: manufacturers, non-manufacturers and entries that do not merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia.
  3. All WRC cars are classified as "Priority 1" (P1) cars regardless as to whether or not they score manufacturer points. Manufacturer entries do not receive any special privileges that non-manufacturer cars do not. All of the sources used in the article—such as this one—clearly indicate that these cars are treated equally by the sport's governing body. Indeed, all P1 cars that are capable of completing a stage must complete the stage in order for the result to be valid. Non-manufacturer entries may not score manufacturer results, but they can affect manufacturer results. This is precisely what happened at the 2018 Wales Rally GB where the final stage was interrupted and had to be run only for P1 cars.
  4. 2019 saw the creation of a multi-class championship in the 2019 World Rally Championship-2. Because of this, the article uses a split table format as teams and crews are competing for different championships under the same regulations. The WRC-2 competes at the same events as the WRC, but with less-powerful cars. They are treated as "Priority 2" (P2), which is run in the same way as P1 (if P1 cars can complete the stage, but P2 cars cannot, the P1 results will stand and the P2 results will not). This has created a situation where 2019 World Rally Championship uses a split table despite the regulations whereas 2019 World Rally Championship-2 uses a split table because of the regulations. Based on this, I think it is reasonable to suggest it is a contradiction and readers could come to the conclusion that non-manufacturer WRC entries are competing for separate titles (which they are not).
  5. The split table format over-emphasises the importance of the manufacturers' championship. The scope of the article extends well beyond the manufacturers' championship. If a split table format is to be used, there should be one table for manufacturer entries and one for drivers' and co-drivers' entries. This effectively means repeating the same table and adding none-manufacturer entries onto one.
  6. Related articles do not use a split table. The entry list in the 2019 Rally Sweden article does not distinguish between manufacturer entries and non-manufacturer entries (Bertelli, Tuohino and Gronholm).
  7. The split table format is a hangover from over a decade ago when the sport had a series of very complicated rules about who could enter as a manufacturer. Those rules no longer exist.
  8. Splitting the table is inconsistent with the wider scope of WP:MOTOR. No other motorsport championship articles split their entry lists. The only comparable scenario is in MotoGP, which used to have a system called "Claiming Rule Teams" that split teams up based on their manufacturer status, but those championship articles did not split their entry lists.
  9. Despite my objections to denoting manufacturer eligibility in the entry list at all, I have proposed a solution that allows for one entry list but gives the reader the freedom to sort the table based on that eligibility. Klops has point-blank rejected any compromise solution.

Klops has also made several arguments that I would like to address here:

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Klõps[edit]

The dispute was between me (+some other editors) and and an anonymous IP editor on dynamic IP (Usually on or two edits per one address). He now has registered an account, but during all these interactions he was the IP editor (see closing statement for the previous case for details [1]).

What and how happened

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

In the discussion two editors beside me were against the changes:
  • Tvx1, wrote: I disagree with the notion that the format should be changed. Despite the evolution of the rules, there is still clear separation with between manufacturer and non-manufacturer points eligible entries. It is clear from the recent edits to the articles that the one table format does create confusion for our readers. [2]
  • Kovpastish, who also did not see any problem with the table: Ultimately I'd vote for two seperate tables, the way we've had it for years is fine. [3]
  • There was one more editor who was neutral. No editors supported IP editor (Mclarenfan17).
My arguments

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

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

Mclarenfan17 was countering my arguments with:

  • the idea that we should follow FIA rules and that FIA considers all WRC cars equal.[4], [5], [6] etc.
I don't think that Wikipedia articles need to follow rules of some international organisation and anyhow the way the article is does not imply that the cars are not equal or that they run in different classes.
  • constantly demanding sources to support how table is sorted claiming that his way is sourced. [7], [8], [9] etc.
I don't think that how a table is sorted (style) is a matter of sources. In both ways all the same information from the same sources is in the table. Only sorted differently. --Klõps (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 World Rally Championship discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •  Note to participants: @Mclarenfan17: Hello - I believe you are re-filing the same case that was closed 2-3 days ago. I'm not sure if you noticed the comments Robert_McClenon made when the initial case was closed but the requested next step was to continue discussion at the article talk page. I checked and do not see any further discussion has taken place following the closure of the initial case so it might be worth while to try that first. airuditious (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - This case was previously dismissed because the filing party was using IP addresses rather than creating a new account. Since the filing party has taken the advice to create a new account, there is no reason not to accept this case now. Further discussion at the talk page would have been reasonable but is not required. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

First statement by moderator[edit]

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

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

First statements by editors[edit]

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

(Oops — that should read @Robert McClenon.) Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Klõps[edit]

The dispute was between me (+some other editors) and and an anonymous IP editor on dynamic IP (Usually on or two edits per one address). He now has registered an account, but during all these interactions he was the IP editor (see closing statement for the previous case for details [10]).

What and how happened

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

In the discussion two editors beside me were against the changes:
  • Tvx1, wrote: I disagree with the notion that the format should be changed. Despite the evolution of the rules, there is still clear separation with between manufacturer and non-manufacturer points eligible entries. It is clear from the recent edits to the articles that the one table format does create confusion for our readers. [11]
  • Kovpastish, who also did not see any problem with the table: Ultimately I'd vote for two seperate tables, the way we've had it for years is fine. [12]
  • There was one more editor who was neutral. No editors supported IP editor (Mclarenfan17).
My arguments

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

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

Mclarenfan17 was countering my arguments with:

  • the idea that we should follow FIA rules and that FIA considers all WRC cars equal.[13], [14], [15] etc.
I don't think that Wikipedia articles need to follow rules of some international organisation and anyhow the way the article is does not imply that the cars are not equal or that they run in different classes.
  • constantly demanding sources to support how table is sorted claiming that his way is sourced. [16], [17], [18] etc.
I don't think that how a table is sorted (style) is a matter of sources. In both ways all the same information from the same sources is in the table. Only sorted differently. --Klõps (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator[edit]

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

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

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

Second statements by editors[edit]

@Robert McClenon — Klops' argument centres on three main points, which I would like to directly address:

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

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

Statement by Klõps. I think that to change the entries table first a agreement should have been reached on project talk, because the article is part of the series of season articles all using same layout and style. Using the same style is less confusing for the readers. We had three editors, active in the project, disagreeing with Mclarenfan17 and no one supporting him. I think the issue is in style. The style has little to do with FIA rules or the official entry lists for the races. Moreover these lists use different styles.[19] [20] I support structurising the information into smaller bites over making one large table. I don't think that having privately entered drivers who are not competing for manufacturers points sorted in second table next to the other table will somehow imply that these crews are not competing in same class or are not equal in the races with other drivers. I believe the prose above the table clears this issue. I think that looking at the 2018 season I'd prefer 19 row table and 16 row table next to each other over one large 35 row table where the drivers are mixed up. I think that the situation can't be compared to other series where private drivers are not allowed to compete in race-by race basis. --Klõps (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator[edit]

I see three possible alternatives:

  • 1. One table.
  • 2. Two tables.
  • 3. One table with sortability as described by Mclarenfan.

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

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

Third statements by editors[edit]

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

Sorry for my late answer. One table or two tables as long as the structure stays so that entries eligible and ineligible to score manufacturer points are not mixed up. Two tables can be joined, but not mixed up. Nothing against sortability, though for me it seems unnecessary (I do not support adding invisible parameter as the table as Mclarenfan17 did with rounds column, in his suggested table nor the small added key table with one option). The options must be discussed in WP:WRC with other editors so that other project pages could be adapted to the same style. There was other editor against this option in the discussion [21]. --Klõps (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator[edit]

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

Fourth statements by editors[edit]

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

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

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

Fifth statement by moderator[edit]

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

Fifth statements by editors[edit]

@Robert McClenon — I agree that publicising the discussion at the WikiProject but continuing it here would be best. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Sixth statement by moderator[edit]

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

Sixth statements by editors[edit]

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

Seventh statement by moderator[edit]

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

Talk:The Red_Tent_(film)[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Goochelaar on 13:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC).

Talk:Young Living#Prohibited_marketing_claims[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Alweth on 04:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

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 subject of the article, Young Living, a company that sells essential oils via multi-level marketing, was warned by the FDA for marketing some of their products in a way that would categorize them as drugs by the FDA. One editor, Bilby, wants to include the detail in the section on the controversy that it was some of Young Living's "consultants" (ie. members of their multi-level marketing program) that were identified by the FDA as making some of the relevant claims. Another editor, Rhode Island Red, is rejecting all proposals and reverting all changes to that effect, for a variety of reasons, ultimately arguing that it "diffuses responsibility." I, Alweth think some of Bilby's proposals have enough merit for inclusion, but have not been able to build any consensus.

Rhode Island Red accuses Bilby and I of variously being product advocates, sockpuppet accounts, or single topic editors. On the other hand, Rhode Island Red's arguments seem to me have devolved into a need to push a specific agenda even in the face of the relevant sources. In short, both sides seem biased to the other side and assumptions of good faith have been significantly strained.

I hope you will take the time to read the whole discussion. For more context, you should also probably look at the New structure subsection of the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

So far, I have only tried talk-page discussion, but there has been a lot of it.

A couple other editors piped in briefly, but none have stuck around for the continuing discussion to help establish consensus.

How do you think we can help?

Because both sides seem biased to the other side, I hope the opinions and arguments of a disinterested party or two could help one or both sides to compromise more. Ideally, the disinterested party would stick around to push for a consensus.

Summary of dispute by Rhode Island Red[edit]

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

This dispute began when CircularReason (talk · contribs) (arguably an WP:SPA), appeared on the TPG making sweeping assertions that the article was biased against Young Living. The editor posted what appeared to be a COI disclosure, [22] Upon discussion on the TPG, the suggestion that the article was biased amounted to nothing. Curiously, Alweth (talk · contribs), a WP:SLEEPER, awoke from a 5-year slumber[23] and appeared on the TPG with the purpose of “addressing CircularReason's concerns about negative bias”.[24] Despite extensive discussion, this too amounted to nothing. Suddenly, Bilby (talk · contribs) appeared out of nowhere on the TPG (neither Alweth, CircularReason, or Bilby had any history editing the article, while 3 other opposing veteran editors -- Zefr (talk · contribs), Grayfell (talk · contribs), and me -- all had a considerable editing history on it) and Bilby proceeded to argue for inclusion of qualifiers (weasel wording) based on his/her reinterpretation about the company’s FDA violations based on a WP:PRIMARY source.[25]

The original text in the article about the FDA Warning (cited in full below in the discussion section of this DR) was entirely consistent with what a plethora of secondary sources wrote about the event (see details below in discussion section of this DR). Despite that fact (pointed out repeatedly on TPG), Alweth and Bilby, through WP:EXHAUST continued to argue that the original text was misleading. They argued that the text should be modified so as to state, essentially, that the FDA notification was directed at the company’s distributors rather than the company itself, which is untrue in law and fact, as well as inconsistent with what the sources stated. The original text was accurate, POV balanced, and in no way inconsistent with the sources. It was neutral and unobjectionable. As a side note, the multi-level marketing MLM business model has been widely criticized for precisely the fact that MLM companies (like Young Living) purposely use their vast distributor networks to make illegal//unauthorized marketing claims from which the company can attempt to distance itself by denying direct culpability (which is a clear dodge and a distinction that the FDA does not recognize) Bilby went so far as to argue that the article’s coverage of the FDA notification was “misleading”[26] and “incorrect”[27] because it didn’t sufficiently shift the focus/blame to the actions of the distributors rather than the company’s responsibility. However, these assertions were proven to be off-base, as multiple sources back up the original text (quotes below in the discussion section of this DR):

After losing their main argument, the two editors in question retreated to arguing that the company’s response to the FDA warning had to be included. At this point, after backsliding to this much smaller quibble, their relentless arguing was starting to become WP:TE. Their complaints were not ignored but were simply proven invalid. But the explanations fell on deaf ears.

In the interest of reaching a fair resolution, I proposed including a line of text indicating that the company had agreed to take the remedial action ordered by the FDA. However, I was lukewarm on the idea given that the company had no real choice but to comply, and saying that they did so seemed rather like a statement that’s not particularly relevant to an encyclopedia. Nonetheless, Alweth agreed with the proposed inclusion and, essentially, Bilby did as well. Subsequently a line of text along the lines of what I proposed was added by Bilby (since modified slightly for more balanced POV and consistency with sources), which should have put an end to the dispute. Despite all of this, Alweth inexplicably launched this DR, eating up even more resources through WP:EXHAUST. For now, the dispute seems to be non-existent, but concerns about WP:SPA, WP:SLEEPER, WP:TAGTEAM, and WP:COI linger. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bilby[edit]

The problem we are having is that the FDA letter sent to Young Living made two claims. One was that young Living were mislabeling their products, while the other was that Young Living's consultants (their marketers, or distributors) were advertising their products as being able to cure diseases such as Ebola. Some sources, like the Inquistr and the Wall Street Journal, are clear about this distinction. However, some sources don't make the distinction, and accuse Young living of both. So we ended up with different claims in secondary sources.

The FDA letter leads with the statement "This is to advise you that in August 2014 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed websites and social media accounts (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest) for several Young Living essential oil consultants that your firm refers to as 'Young Living distributors'", and then states, later in the letter, "Your consultants promote many of your Young Living Essential Oil Products for conditions such as, but not limited to, viral infections (including ebola), Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis, that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners" [28]. Young Living responded by saying that they would be working with their consultants to fix the issue.

The distinction became important for two reasons. First, a second company, doTerra, who received warnings from the FDA at the same time. (doTerra were also warned for not preventing their consultants from marketing their products as cures for Ebola and other diseases). This action by the FDA placed an additional responsibility on the two companies, as it made them responsible for the actions of their (thousands) of distributors, and there have been articles discussing this impact in regard to doTerra, just not as much in regard to Young Living. The second reason is what caught my initial attention, because very rarely do companies of this size make the mistake of claiming that their products can cure disease, as their legal teams prevent errors of that scale. They are well aware of the need to post disclaimers and avoid making specific untested health claims.

At the moment, Rhode Island Red wants to use sources that place all the blame on Young Living, while I would like to use the sources that appear to me to be more consistent with the FDA letter. It is possible to produce sources to make either claim. - Bilby (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Aside from JzG[edit]

In addition to the accurate and succinct statement by Rhode Isalnd Red above, I'd note the content of the FDA letter:

You market your Young Living Essential Oil products through paid consultants; your compensation plan for your consultants is explained on your website www.youngliving.com/en_US/opportunity/compensation-plan. Your consultants promote many of your Young Living Essential Oil Products for conditions such as, but not limited to, viral infections (including ebola), Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis, that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners. Consumers interested in your Young Living Essential Oil products are then redirected by your consultants to your website, http://www.youngliving.com, to purchase your products and/or register as members (i.e., consultants).[1]

The FDA absolutely and explicitly makes the link between the fraudulent claims, and the company.

There is relevant case law, for example:

  • Kugler v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 120 N.J. Super. 216, 293 A.2d 682 (Ch. Div. 1972) – Manufacturer, operating a multi-level distribution system, could not avoid liability for misrepresentations made by distributors by arguing that distributors were independent agents.
  • Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Equinox Int’l Corp., CV-S-990969JBR(RLH), 1999 WL 1425373 (D. Nev. Sept. 14, 1999) – Defendant could not “shield itself from liability merely by arguing that current misrepresentations are made by independent contractors.”

Of course we don't rely on our own reading of the facts, we follow the secondary sources, which are as RIR says, but underlying that is the legal position which seems pretty clearly to support the statements the sources are making. We are under no obligation to be deferential to representatives of these pyramid schemes, Guy (Help!) 00:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Young Living#Prohibited_marketing_claims discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Since this discussion, which should have been minimal, is already lengthy, it can continue inside the curtains. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

As referenced above in my opening statement, These are the original blocks of text in the article that pertain to the FDA notice of violation:

(LEAD) “In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against illegally marketing its products as treatments or cures for Ebola virus,[5][6][7] and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis."[8][9][10]”

(BODY) “In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against illegally marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus,[5][6][7] and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis."[8][10][9] The letter named specific essential oil products "promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs under section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B)], because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease."[9] The warning further stated that the marketing and distribution of these essential oil products as drugs by Young Living without FDA approval are violations of the Act.[9][24]“

Relevant quotes from secondary sources establishing the company’s direct culpability are as follows:

“The agency has issued warning letters to three separate companies that are marketing Ebola cures, demanding that they cease the sale of their products. The letters were sent to the Natural Solutions Foundation in New Jersey, as well as dōTERRA International LLC and Young Living, both based out of Utah. According to the letters, the companies’ websites all make claims that their products are therapeutic, but none is FDA-approved. That puts the companies in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”[29]

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to three privately held companies marketing treatments that claim to prevent or treat Ebola. The letters were sent to Newton, New Jersey-based Natural Solutions Foundation, Utah-based dōTERRA International LLC and Utah-based Young Living…The FDA said last month that it had become aware of products being sold online that fraudulently claim to prevent or treat Ebola. The warning letters followed a review of the companies’ websites and social media accounts promoting the sale of the products.”[30]

“The FDA said both doTERRA and Young Living advertised some of their oils as "cures" for viral infections, including Ebola. The letter also stated the companies advertise oils as treatments for cancer, autism, and Alzheimer’s, among a lengthy list of other diseases.”[31]

“Last fall, the FDA sent a warning letter to reprimand these false claims made by Natural Solutions Foundation, Young Living, and dōTERRA International LLC.”[32]

“This week the FDA sent warning letters to three companies the government agency says are selling products over the Internet that claim to treat, prevent or even cure the deadly disease.”[33]

Young Living, based in Lehi, and doTERRA, based in Pleasant Grove, each had statements on their websites that many of their essential oil products can cure serious conditions including herpes, Alzheimer’s disease and cancer. A post on Young Living’s website states, “Ebola Virus cannot live in the presence of cinnamon bark (this is in Thieves) nor Oregano.” [34]

“But the FDA issued the company a bureaucratic fatwa, noting that the health claims for their products “cause(s) them [the essential oils] to be drugs under section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B)], because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” And that was the real bad news for Young Living, because a drug has to be studied and claims verified…the health claims had to be removed…”[35]

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent letters to three companies this week, warning them against marketing their products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola. The letters, posted online on Wednesday, document multiple claims from the companies or their paid representatives that essential oils and other natural remedies can "help prevent your contracting the Ebola virus".[36]

Young Living’s CEO was reprimanded for more than just consultants’ claims. Young Living’s own website made claims that promoted products in such a way that the federal government would classify the products as drugs, according to the FDA.”[37]

This was the addendum I proposed:[38] “A Young Living spokesperson subsequently announced that the company was taking action to correct its marketing practices."

Alweth agreed with the proposed inclusion:[39]

Bilby essentially agreeing with the proposal:[40]

Bilby adding text based on the proposal:[41]

My subsequent modification of text added by Bilby:[42] Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Just on that final claim, no, I didn't agree with your proposal. I added alternative wording which I felt was safe and would work as a compromise.
Anyway, I guess the real issue is the sources. First, the FDA letter is here. In it, they say that they looked at both Young Living's own material and marketing material created by Young Living's consultants/distributors. In regard to the latter, they found:
"Your consultants promote many of your Young Living Essential Oil Products for conditions such as, but not limited to, viral infections (including ebola), Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis, that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners."
The FDA then list the specific violations that they found in the consultants' marketing materials, before discussing the labeling issues which Young Living is directly responsible for. There are two claims: 1. Young Living is mislabeling some of their products and suggesting that they are drugs, and 2. Young living's consultants are also advertising Young Living products as cures for speficic diseases.
Currently we make both claims in the article:
In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against illegally marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis."
The warning further stated that the marketing and distribution of these essential oil products as drugs by Young Living without FDA approval are violations of the Act.
In the first, we include part of the relevant quote from the FDA letter, but leave out the part which states that it was their consultants found to be doing this, placing the full responsibility on Young Living.
Sources can be broken up into at least four groups (I've added some examples, but this isn't exhaustive):
1. Sources that discuss how the consultants have been incorrectly marketing the products as cures for disease: Boston Globe, Inquisitr, Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker.
2. Sources which are ambiguous, and could be read either way: CNN, Washington Post
3. Sources that say the Ebola claims are solely the responsibility of Young Living: Daily Beast, Rueters, Popular Science, Pharmacy Times
4. Sources which seem to make contradictory claims: Daily Herald
Part of the problem is that in an MLM like Young Living, most of their marketing is handled by independent distributors, so it is possible (although potentially misleading) to describe the distributor's actions as "Young Living's marketing".Thus some sources do that, while others distinguish between the material produced by Young Living and the material by their distributors.
The issue is not about apportioning blame - I'm not trying the remove responsibility from Young living. What I'd like to see is an accurate account, especially given the significance of holding MLM companies responsible for the marketing produced by their distributors, which we know has caused issues for their main rival, doTerra. It is always difficult when different sources make different claims. - Bilby (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Repeating from above for convenience.
  • Kugler v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 120 N.J. Super. 216, 293 A.2d 682 (Ch. Div. 1972) – Manufacturer, operating a multi-level distribution system, could not avoid liability for misrepresentations made by distributors by arguing that distributors were independent agents.
  • Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Equinox Int’l Corp., CV-S-990969JBR(RLH), 1999 WL 1425373 (D. Nev. Sept. 14, 1999) – Defendant could not “shield itself from liability merely by arguing that current misrepresentations are made by independent contractors.”
See also the "harming customers" section of this paper. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Those sources are part of why it is significant that Young Living failed to properly police their distributors. That's why I'd like to make their responsibility in this clear. - Bilby (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, the change I am proposing is to alter:
"In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against illegally marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis."
To:
In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living for failing to prevent their consultants from illegally marketing its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis."
Sourced to the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Boston Globe and the FDA letter as a primary source of the quote. I have no wish to remove blame from Young Living, just to correctly identify what they did wrong. - Bilby (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bilby: "In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living due to illegally marketing of products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis." Supported by 100% of the sources and removes the spurious ambiguity, since it's clearly their job to ensure it doesn't happen, whoever is making the claims. Also avoids the WP:WEASEL issue of casting this as rogue distributors, when multiple sources note that MLMs foster and actively support a culture whereby fraudulent claims are institutionalised. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Multiple sources also note that the problem was a failure to police the distributors, which, as you have pointed out, it was Young Living's responsibility to do. Being clear on this removes any ambiguity about what Young living was failing to do. - Bilby (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - The filing party has notified one of the editors, but not all of the editors, and needs to notify the other listed editors. Any further discussion before the case is opened should be carried on inside the curtains. Overly long posts often serve no purpose other than to make the poster feel better. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Not quite true. I filed this request and notified both parties (beside myself) that I listed as being involved. Someone else added two more people who I did not include because they seemed to have dropped out of the discussion. Alweth (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
But I've gone ahead and notified the other members. Alweth (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

User talk:CordialGreenery[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by CordialGreenery on 09:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

Talk:Neurodiversity#Criticism section[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Sleeplessbooks on 06:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC).

User talk:Beyond_My_Ken#BEN_SHAPIRO[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by ImmortalWizard on 19:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC).

Talk:Art Deco[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 95.180.55.184 on 13:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC).

Talk:Haze (band)#External_links[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 84.46.53.0 on 13:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC).

Talk:Happy Science[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Sorunikusu on 13:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Sorunikusu Bonadea[edit]

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

Talk:Happy Science discussion[edit]

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

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

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

University of Pennsylvania - Evolution from a Commuter School to a Residential University[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Wa3frp on 03:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC).

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

eed assistance here with an editor has previously deleted content in the subject previously entitled "Evolution from a Commuter School to a Residential University" and now renamed to "Campus Expansion to student housing"

The editor in question is relatively new to Wikipedia and has previously indicated via the University of Pennsylvania Talk page that "commuter school" should not be included in the because "...the term "commuter school" has a negative connotation..." However, the facts and references support this fact. The references that are (were) in Evolution from a Commuter School to a Residential University use the phrase "commuter school" in more than one era by multiple authors.

I have tried, unsuccessfully, to make my point that negative connotations are allowed especially since this article is not a promotional piece for the University of Pennsylvania. I refuse to be drawn into an edit war and I request the assistance of a more senior editor.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Unsuccessfully Talking via Talk page

How do you think we can help?

I think that it needs to be made clear that "negative connotations" is not a reason to delete text especially when the references support the term "commuter school" Wikipedia is not a place for puffery or promotional articles.

Summary of dispute by Mrfeeny[edit]

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

University of Pennsylvania - Evolution from a Commuter School to a Residential University discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Kwamikagami on 04:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Buyerseve[edit]

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

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

Summary of dispute by Chipmunkdavis[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Sander000[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Panda2018 0[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Jedi Friend[edit]

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

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

Same-sex marriage discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • I'm gonna be curmudgeonly here. This is like disputing the best way to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. As I tried to convey under that discussion, it doesn't matter which colors you use to display this information in a format that is already a poor vehicle for communicating this sort of information. While it's everyone's go-to, a map is a suboptimal way of displaying information broken down among the map's subdivisions, and this discussion is an excellent illustration as to why that is.
The information being communicated is just as significant for teeny, tiny territories as it is for great big territories. But a map, while making it easy to discern that information as it relates to great big territories, makes it really tough or impossible to discern for teeny, tiny territories. This falsely gives the impression that the former information is important and the latter unimportant.
It doesn't matter what color Akrotiri is if Akrotiri can barely be detected. It probably matters a great deal more, to more people, what the status is of SSM in Singapore than in Greenland, but the latter is much more readily acquired from a world map than the former.
The best way to convey this sort of information is the table. A table should be supplemented by a graphic visualization only when the graphic visualization is an improvement on the table. For breakdowns of data by subdivision, with one exception (in that it allows regional trends to be discerned), a map is not an improvement. This makes it especially unproductive to debate whether color A or color B is the best way to convey information about a territory that can barely be seen at all anyway. Largoplazo (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have been notified. Is this a question that can be best resolved by moderated discussion leading to compromise? This dispute appears to have a large number of editors, and with large numbers of editors, Requests for Comments often work better. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
That would be fine by me. But I think moderated discussion might prove useful. E.g. when Buyerseve keeps repeating the same seemingly false claims, they might listen to an independent moderator disputing those claims or asking for clarification, whereas they're obviously not listening to me. Or perhaps a moderator might be able to determine if there is some truth behind those claims that I can't see, since there is no real dialog between us. — kwami (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I would absolutely support a moderated dialogue. --Buyerseve (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Robert McClenon, having effectively been called in by a RfC, I do not find the discussion as it is on that page now very conducive to an RfC, as the issues have seemingly been discussed elsewhere and very little of this background made it into the new discussion. For example, I had to find and place the two maps being discussed on the talkpage myself. It's also unhelpful that the discussion covers various unrelated issues. An RfC may be more useful later in the process. CMD (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Autonova on 09:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The article's first sentence defines a conspiracy theory as "an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy – generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors – without credible evidence". I am disputing the last three words, "without credible evidence", arguing that they should not be included in the definition. I have five reliable sources (four dictionaries and an academic journal) which explicitly give the definition, and none of them include the statement "without credible evidence" or equivalent.

As it is, the statement is not supported by any reliable source. The only source being referred to, allegedly in support of it, is in the body, A Culture of Conspiracy by Michael Barkun which reads "no matter how much evidence their adherents accumulate, belief in a conspiracy theory ultimately becomes a matter of faith rather than proof." I argue that this does not support the statement that all CTs are, by definition, "without credible evidence". The first part of the source's statement actually supports the opposite.

I also have an academic paper by Dr Charles Pigden ([44]), which states, "we are rationally entitled to believe in conspiracy theories, if that is what the evidence suggests."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Dicussed on the talk page. I've also offered to compromise with the phrase "with or without credible evidence", but this was refused and the user I was offering it to said he's done talking to me.

How do you think we can help?

Providing an outside opinion on the issue.

Summary of dispute by MjolnirPants[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Slatersteven[edit]

The contested line is a paraphrase of the fact that Conspiracy theories are not supported by evidence (indeed the opposite, they are based upon faith, not evidence). However I can see also that the use of the word " credible" is problematic, as it is far to subjective. I have suggested we change it to "without consistent standards of evidence".Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

We can put this on hold until MP can comment, no issue with that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sue an RFC will work, but we can give it a go.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by JzG[edit]

The definitional difference between a conspiracy theory and an actual conspiracy, is that a conspiracy theory is not supported by evidence. The current definition has been strenuously opposed by proponents of conspiracy theories for a long time, but is a completely accurate lay summary of the sources. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished delusions.

Prior discussion at Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 19. There was solid consensus there for the current version, but conspiracy believers (of which the OP is one) have never liked it. Their long term goal appears to me to be to water down the definition of conspiracy theory in Wikipedia to the point that it does not cause them cognitive dissonance. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by LuckyLouie[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken[edit]

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

I do not believe there is a need for dispute resolution, since there is a consensus on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Conspiracy theory#"Without_credible_evidence" discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • MjolnirPants cannot participate until his current block expires. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ditto Beyond My Ken. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The editors have been notified. If multiple editors want a moderator to facilitate discussion, a moderator will be requested. However, the number of editors may be larger than is practical for moderated discussion. The editors are asked whether a Request for Comments might be more workable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I considered RfC but decided on dispute resolution. I think the type of discussion is one which is more nuanced than a support/oppose decision, and there may be room for compromise. Also I have many reliable sources which support my position which aren't currently in the article, which editors have prevented me from adding. I would prefer a moderator to assist. Autonova (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I am thinking that an RfC might have been a better course of action before coming here. No opinion at the moment on the issue at hand. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
If this is more appropriate then I'm happy to close this request down and set up an RfC. Autonova (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's my thinking at the moment. I don't want to short circuit the process now underway with any precipitous action. But my gut says an RfC is the best way to handle this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Alternative medicine[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Mattpeck on 20:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC).