Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard - Wikipedia

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

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.

Second statements by editors (1977 pogrom)

  – 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

• Montacute House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• A.D.Hope (talk · contribs)
• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
• Murgatroyd49 (talk · contribs)
• Johnbod (talk · contribs)
• KJP1 (talk · contribs)
• AdamBlack89 (talk · contribs)
• EPEAviator (talk · contribs)
• The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs)
• Rodw (talk · contribs)

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 Nikkimaria

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

Summary of dispute by Murgatroyd49

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

Summary of dispute by Johnbod

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

Summary of dispute by KJP1

Please 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)[reply]

If you had no wish to personalise this content dispute then you should not have written the second half of your comment. Your remarks are uncharitable, and do not show that I refuse to acknowledge other views or interpretations. To give a single example, you should note that I was open to other image options at Talk:Essex#Infobox images, and that I went to some effort to reconcile with Rupples after a misunderstanding.

In any case, this dispute is about Montacute, not me. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guidance suggests we don't engage in a back-and-forth, but I'll leave that to the volunteer who picks this up. KJP1 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance also states that you should 'comment on content, not contributors', but all three comments so far have contained personal comments about me. I hope you can understand why that would be difficult, but you're right that it goes against the guidance to reply.

I will disengage, but I'd like to note that I still have a great deal of respect you as an editor. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by AdamBlack89

Please 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)[reply]

Summary of dispute by EPEAviator

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

Summary of dispute by The Lady Catherine de Burgh

Oh! How nice of you all to think of me, I don’t believe anyone has contacted me since poor Benito died in 1945. Such a charming man, did you know him too? So misunderstood! Now what is it you all want to discuss? I do charge for public comments. My nephew can send payment details if you care to enquire. I accept most credit cards, but cash is always nice if you have it. You see this is where the poor dear Phelips at Montacute House went so sadly wrong, they took their eye off the finances. Then, they let in that dreadful pompous Curzon man, with all his ‘sinning on tiger skins With Elinor Glyn? Or erring with her on some other fur?’ Well, it’s not good for people, they get hairs in their crevices and whatnots and they end up, wasting their time, on pages like this. So, I suggest you all get outside in the fresh air and go fishing or stalking, or even ratting, and do something useful and stop bothering very poor and defenceless old ladies such as myself! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:IAR, I’ll reply directly…

I didn’t even read the original dispute (saw yr name on the left after being summoned for another thread), but we need more bubble-popping stuff like this. This sort of thing would be very productive in areas like, say, American politics.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Rodw

I 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)[reply]

Montacute House discussion

Please 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)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Montacute House)

• Robert, to confirm, I'd be pleased for you to pick this up, and I will make every effort to abide by the requirements. Assuming that the filer is too, and I think they are, you have your necessary two editors. I think the dispute can be summarised as:

(1) Does MoS, or other policy/guidance/convention, preclude the use of a collapsed infobox, as currently in use at Montacute House, or is such a collapsed infobox an acceptable, article-specific, compromise which can legitimately be agreed by involved editors?

(2) I do think that a determination on the above should also include a consideration of next steps, that is: if a collapsed infobox cannot be used, should it be replaced by a full infobox, or by no infobox? My concern is that, unless we cover this point, we are back in the 2009 impasse to which the collapsed infobox was the resolution. KJP1 (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I don't want to prolong/complicate this discussion, but input from a user who actually understands how infoboxes work on various technologies, might be useful. I'm a numpty on this issue but, when I try Montacute House on my mobile devices, iPad, iPhone and android phone, I get the collapsed infobox on opening. But when, as an example, I try Cragside, which has an uncollapsed infobox, I get the uncollapsed IB on the iPad and iPhone, but a collapsed IB, labelled "Quick Facts", on my android phone? I've no idea why, but I'm sure I've read that the majority of Wikipedia readers use mobile devices so it might be helpful to properly understand their experience. KJP1 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I can also confirm that I'll abide by the rules, and I'm happy you've taken on the moderation, Robert. I agree with KJP1's points, and don't have anything further to add at the moment. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

First statements by editors (Montacute House)

• On balance I would support an infobox, as, although not universally used, it's become common practice to have one in similar articles and I do believe that a summary of information such as the location, building phases, architectural style, and the builder is useful. It isn't essential that the article has one, however.

It may be tricky to attract enough attention to an RfC. Despite the current normal discussion having been open for nearly a month and being publicised, both it and the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:COLLAPSE have failed to attract many outside editors. I'm not against an RfC by any means, but it may not be fruitful unless it does have a wider participation.

If it's allowed, I'd be interested to if you have any thoughts on how MOS:COLLAPSE might apply in this case. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that choice, I would rather not have an infobox, but that is not really what this dispute is about. I would (and did) rather reluctantly accept having an infobox of reasonable size, complying with WP:INFOBOX, and only containing the key information that readers are likely to be interested in:"keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". This emphatically does not include 8 lines each on the "Listed Building – Grade I" and "National Register of Historic Parks and Gardens" listings, including the day of the months in respectively 1961 and 1984 when the registrations happened, and the two registration numbers. Not to mention the registered name, which in each case is, amazingly, "Montacute House". This cruft should not be in the infobox at all, but near the bottom of the text, probably in a footnote. The registrations should have a line each in the infobox, if there must be one. The collapsed infobox was a compromise, which, despite the old consensus being re-affirmed in recent discussions, A.D.Hope has been completely intransigent in refusing to accept. Wikipedia needs to decide whether it is an encyclopaedia or a database. The situation has I think got worse since 2009, when the gardens scheme had not been added to the box (or most similar houses). Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If it were a personal choice, I would include an infobox. The articles I have taken to FAC, from broadly Start level, all include one. But I recognise that this view is not universally accepted. Therefore, for FA articles I have worked on at FAR where the original editors did not include one, e.g. Belton House, I have not imposed one. My position is thus to respect the views of the main contributing editors. Where I am that main contributing editor, I have one. Where I am not, and the intention of those that are is not to include an IB, I don't. This leads to my concern regarding an RfC. This will almost certainly have one of two outcomes. Either, as A.D.Hope suggests, it will attract little interest and be inconclusive. Or it will create another virulent and divisive time-sink, like this, or many, many other examples...and be inconclusive. We will not resolve the pro/anti Infobox debate here, because it is not capable of resolution. My own view is that we should therefore accept that there are differing, and equally valid, views as to the value of infoboxes, (see the two comments above), recognise that they are actually pretty unimportant in terms of the overall quality of an article, and to have policies/guidance that accommodate this divergence of view, including the option of a collapsed infobox. We have 6.7 million articles on Wikipedia, of which 6,437 are Featured Articles. We have to accept that there is more than one way to write a good one. KJP1 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Second statements by editors (Montacute House)

• Second comment by KJP1. With the aim of trying to find a compromise, would a pared-back, un-collapsed, infobox be acceptable to those who would actually prefer not to have one at all, while including the "essential" detail, Grade I, Listed park, that those who favour an IB want? I'm envisaging something like the below. Sorry it makes a bit of a mess of the page. All of the "important detail/bureaucratic cruft" (take your pick!), listing numbers etc., could then go in a prose section. KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert - not wanting to breach the rules by a back-and-forth conversation, but just for clarity, my position on this article, if I had to chose between having an IB and not having an IB, would be not. This is because the main contributing editor - User:Giano, in two guises, at 41.3% - did not want one. This is exactly what I, and the late, lamented, Vami IV, did at the Belton House FAR, where Giano was again the lead contributor. I could have chosen to insert one there, and indeed I am now the main contributor on that article, but I chose not to. Ditto here, and here. KJP1 (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Robert, I think you might be inching us towards a compromise. Recognising that Rod did want an IB, and they are the second highest contributor to the article, if JohnBod could live with the truncated version illustrated, I could certainly do a prose paragraph, to go either above or below In popular culture, to contain those listing details, which we've all agreed we don't want in an IB. Perhaps if you were to frame that as a compromise solution, we could see if it flies? KJP1 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies for extending the back-and-forth – I'm only doing so to correct my misinterpretation of KJP1's first statement in my second statement below.

  Given KJP1 and Johnbod do not want an infobox, I would follow this consensus. I agree with KJP1's reasoning in following the wishes of the main contributor, assuming there are no other factors at play. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• An RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to clarify to what extent and in what circumstances infoboxes should be collapsed might be worthwhile. The current guideline isn't as clear as it could be, which has made the Montacute discussion more difficult.

Assuming collapsing isn't an option, the fact myself and KJP1 support an infobox and Johnbod can tolerate one suggests that having an infobox would be acceptable. Other editors may not agree with this, however.

I agree with Johnbod that the listed building parameters take up too much space. As this affects more than just the Montacute House article, discussion about modifying them should take place at template:infobox historic site. I would be happy to help with organising this. My preference would be to do this after the conclusion of the RfC about MOS:COLLAPSE mentioned above. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the stripped-down IB is way better, but in fact goes a bit too far. I think my detailed comments on that belong at talk on the house, but I would welcome a more general discussion at template:infobox historic site, when this is over. We now have discussions on 3 pages on this, some with multiple threads. Don't let's start another. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fourth statements by editors (Montacute House)

• Am I right in saying that we've reached a consensus not to include an infobox at Montacute House, the principal reason being that the main contributing editor didn't want one? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I thought we were closer to agreeing a, very much trimmed down, infobox. You would like one, as would RodW. I would have one if I had written the article from scratch. While Johnbod, and we can assume Giano, would prefer not to have one, Johnbod can live with the slimmed-down version. As to Giano, we know they accepted the collapsed version as a compromise. My guess is that they would prefer a much-truncated version to a full IB if those were the only options. KJP1 (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fifth statements by editors (Montacute House)

• I can agree with the reasoning in KJP1's fourth statement above. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Although I'm not quite sure what a 'much trimmed down' infobox means. We can work that out on the article talk page, perhaps. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a "small" infobox", along the lines of the exemplar given. KJP1 (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sixth statements by editors (Montacute House)

Back-and-forth discussion (Montacute House)

• To kick the discussion off: considering a spectrum from NONE; Bramshill House; to COLLAPSED Little Moreton Hall; to FULL Cragside; I think the minimum details for an IB to be of any value would be something like:

Name / Image (as large as permissible) / Location / Listed Building Status (one line) / Historic Park Status (one line) / Map

I could probably lose Governing body (easy to cover in the lead) / Type (again in lead) / Architect (again in lead, although if the building was strongly associated with one architect, e.g. Hearst Castle & Julia Morgan, there might be a case?) Architectural style (again in lead). These last two do illustrate the challenges of trying for an accurate IB summary - how many architects would you list for Buckingham Palace, what architectural style would you attribute to it? Hope this is helpful as a starting suggestion. KJP1 (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect that which parameters are used really depends on the article. 'Type', for example, is used well at Alfriston Clergy House, a major surviving example of a Wealden hall house, a specific type of dwelling. It's less well-deployed at Knole, a great sprawling mess of a place which doesn't conform to a single type, and which is described rather broadly as a country house.

To answer the last part of your comment, at Criccieth Castle I listed the builders (owners, really) and building phases in the infobox. The castle was built in three main phases, and while this is explained in the article body it is useful to have them laid out simply. For houses with particularly complex building histories this approach would probably produce unwieldy results, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• While the list at the top of this section is a reasonable start, I don't think it is possible to give a standard minimum list, even for as narrow a group as English country houses. For example the old expanded Montacute box had "Type: prodigy house, Style: Elizabethan architecture". Really since the great majority of prodigy houses are Elizabethan, with a few from the next reign, and all are country houses, "Type: Elizabethan prodigy house" covers all that pretty well. Something on type/style is much more important than the listing info, even at one line; that is where the appalling UNESCO World Heritage Site box falls down. The The main date of completion of the existing structure is important, if there is one, but often there isn't. In the case of Montacute, the builder Edward Phelips (speaker) isn't essential for the IB imo, but for eg Hatfield House it would be. The trouble is that for the general run of articles, the drive-by people who added the infoboxes, mostly some years ago now, had no idea what was important for a particular article and what wasn't. I notice that the FA Ham House doesn't mention the gardens listing in the IB at all, though it is in the lead - and the gardens there are way more important than those at Montacute, where the layout is essentially 19/20th century. I am one of the very, very few WP editors who currently write on English garden history, and I'm not that interested in the gardens listings as a key fact. Johnbod (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we're largely in agreement. Do you think it's worth opening a discussion in the future about the listings boxes, or is it something we can live with? I'm working on Wightwick Manor at the moment and have reduced the boxes to just their listing numbers, which I think works quite well (and if you'd like to chip in on the gardens side please consider this an invitation). A.D.Hope (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that we've largely reached agreement here, and I think User:Rodw will be content to the extent that there will be a box - but they can correct me if I'm wrong. My concern about any wider discussion remains. Either there will be little interest, and it will be another conversation between the few of us. Or there will be a lot of interest, with attendant heat, and we shall just discover, once again, that people get very worked up over IBs, and that there are very divergent, and irreconcilable, views. Personally, I'd just chalk this one up as a local consensus and move on to other things. But I understand if others want a wider discussion. KJP1 (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have previously said I believe many readers find an infobox useful, however I do not feel strongly enough for long discussions like this or anywhere else.— Rod ^talk 08:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  – 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

• Russo-Ukrainian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

Summary of dispute by Slatersteven

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

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)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Parham wiki

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian War discussion

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Second statements by editors (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

• Boeing 737 MAX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Martinevans123 (talk · contribs)
• RickyCourtney (talk · contribs)
• StalkerFishy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We have had an in-depth conversation on the Boeing 737 MAX talk page for multiple days regarding the use of the phrase "pilot error" in the article when referring to the Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian Airlines 302 accidents. At this point, I have provided many reliable secondary sources which go into great detail regarding the errors of the pilots, the development of the 737 MAX, and the results of the official accident reports. Some of these directly use the phrase "pilot error".

In my opinion, simply using a particular phrase which is widely accepted in the field being discussed requires no source, but even so, upon request from other editors I have provided sources which show direct evidence of both pilot error and the usage of the term in reliable secondary sources. There's even a Wikipedia article on Pilot Error.

We have "driver error" for cars, we have "engineer error" for trains, we have "captain error" for boats, we have "operator error" for heavy equipment and machinery, and we have "human error" for basically everything else. Why is "pilot error" uniquely contentious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:B430:C623:2BCB:6882 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources I have provided include very technical language, and it seems like the significance of the information is perhaps lost on editors who are not familiar with the subject matter.

More specifically, I have proposed that this sentence in the lede "Contributing to the accidents was the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which activated unexpectedly due to erroneous angle of attack data, and inadequate pilot training." is modified to read "Contributing to the accidents was the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which activated unexpectedly due to erroneous angle of attack data, and pilot error due to inadequate training." with the appropriate link to the Pilot Error article.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Boeing_737_MAX#Additional_lede_comments

Talk:Boeing_737_MAX#Major_updates_needed

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

If reliable secondary sources indicate that the pilots made errors, the article should include the phrase "pilot error", whether or not the sources themselves use the specific phrase. Reliable secondary sources which do specifically refer to "pilot error" have even been included, which I feel is more than enough evidence that the phrase is acceptable.

Summary of dispute by Martinevans123

• Question: is User:StalkerFishy also a party to this dispute? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not experienced with these notice boards, so please put me down as a third-party participant or something. I don't plan on directly defending the anon OP but will articulate my thoughts in a summary below.

  StalkerFishy (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for clarifying. I think this posting is premature as no proposed wording for addition to the article has yet been discussed, and is also, in my view, dependant on what is added at Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the phrase "pilot error" in the lead section might be justified if sufficient context was provided to explain that the use of the term, in the context of the two accidents, has been controversial. I'd suggest that adding a bald statement such as "pilot error was a contributory factor", for either or both of the accidents, should be avoided. I believe that the arguments that the term is justified in the lead section because it "has been used to describe many other accidents", or because "most aviation accidents are caused by pilot error", are wholly spurious and demonstrate a failure of logical reasoning. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: discussion over the use of the term "pilot error" in the lead section of the Boeing 737 MAX article, as well as in the lead sections and/or info-boxes of the two accident articles, seems to be connected with removal or reduction of "MCAS" as the main cause of, or major contributory factor in, the respective accidents. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by RickyCourtney

I have actively considered numerous suggestions from the Anonymous editor, collaborating with them to implement several alterations to the article.

While the article acknowledges pilot error as a "contributing" factor in the two fatal crashes of the 737 MAX, it places it within a broader context, highlighting that pilot error was just one of at least nine issues contributing to the accidents. The singular report attributing primary blame to the pilots was authored by individuals commissioned and compensated by institutional investors holding significant Boeing stock. These individuals were widely perceived as advocating a perspective to deflect blame away from Boeing.

Returning to the central concern, I object to including the term "pilot error" in the article's introduction. Such inclusion would necessitate an extensive contextual explanation covering various other shortcomings that culminated in the two crashes, undermining the purpose of the introduction, which is to summarize the article's key points briefly. Furthermore, I am concerned that the term "pilot error" may be perceived by lay readers as a negative judgment of the pilots, perpetuating a narrative that some pilots have criticized as "blinkered chauvinism in this view of U.S. pilots as superior."^[1] -- RickyCourtney (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by StalkerFishy

We're trying to determine if the term "pilot error" should be included in the Boeing 737 MAX article & lede. The primary issue is that the term is not used in the Ethiopian [2] or Indonesian [3] accident investigation report, or the NTSB [4] and BEA [5] reports. However, the latter two reports explicitly state a couple key points, which are backed up and further expanded on by secondary sources:

• The incident aircraft was recoverable by following existing procedure (RUNAWAY STABILIZER checklist)
• The pilots of each aircraft were recently trained on this procedure
• The pilots failed to perform the applicable emergency checklist properly (RUNAWAY STABILIZER checklist)
• Pilots of the preceding Lion Air flight encountered the same problem but were able to recover the aircraft by using the RUNAWAY STABILIZER checklist, and continued the flight without event

So while the NTSB and BEA sources do detail the mistakes, inaction, and inadequate actions of the pilots, they never explicitly say "pilot error". I believe the crux of this dispute stems from if we should summarize the four points above into "pilot error". At least one secondary source does this for us [6]. If we don't, then the only way to detail the incidents accurately is by writing out these key points to describe how the aircraft crashed. If we do, we're using a semi-restrictive term more liberally than it usually is.

StalkerFishy (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 737 MAX discussion

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

Zeroth statement by moderator (Boeing 737 Max)

I am ready to act as moderator in this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. I see that one of the issues has to do with whether and when to use the phrase "pilot error". Will each editor please specify exactly where they either think that the phrase should be used, or where another editor thinks it should be used and they think that it should not be used? Will each editor please also identify any other portions of the article about which they think that there is a content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Boeing 737 Max)

Statement by Martinevans123

I'd suggest that whether and when to use the phrase "pilot error" is the only substantive issue in this dispute. But I see that the discussion at Talk:Boeing 737 MAX#Additional lede comments has now been closed by User:RickyCourtney with the summary "Consensus has been reached on a rewording." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Zeroth? Wasn't he some big cheese in Greek mythology??[reply]

First statement by moderator (Boeing 737 Max)

Is there any remaining disagreement, or should I close this thread as resolved by talk page discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (Boeing 737 Max)

  – New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• MP4 file format (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ftrebien (talk · contribs)
• Svnpenn (talk · contribs)
• VQuakr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute revolves around determining whether the MP4 file format is an open format. It is an open standard according to the Library of Congress, which is a secondary source. After I provided a reference to the Library of Congress, the other user removed the reference, changed the “open” status to "not open", and restored the previous references to GitHub, starting an edit war. A third opinion agreed that the GitHub sources were not that reliable. After another revert, the other user changed the status again to "not open" by adding references to one organization's definition of "open" (then the article was protected in that state...), and in the discussion this editor questioned the authority of the Library of Congress in defining what open means, while ignoring references that point to different interpretations of the term by different standards organizations and governments. I believe there is a problem in understanding the definitions.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Discussed at Talk:MP4 file format
• Asked for a third opinion, which is now involved in the discussion and agrees that GitHub was not a proper source

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think you can help by reaffirming the reliability of the Library of Congress as a secondary source for this information, by directing the question about the definition of "open" to the relevant articles, and by supporting an edit request at the end of the talk page.

Summary of dispute by Svnpenn

update: in the spirit of trying to find consensus, I have suggested to remove the "open format" marker, or replace it with something less contentious. user Fernando Trebien has referred to this as "nonsense"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open_file_format#Open_formats_require_an_open_licence%3f

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svnpenn (talk • contribs) 22:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that user Ftrebien has acted in bad faith. they engaged in reversals themself, also they even went so far as to edit other articles, in service of their agenda:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_file_format

removing links and text that had been added by third parties. I am fine with removing the GitHub links, and keeping the LOC link. however LOC is a non-technical government agency, and as such is not an arbiter of what is an open format. they are welcome to their opinion, as is Ftrebien. to my eyes, these are currently the best links on the subject:

https://opendefinition.org/ofd/

https://www.nnlm.gov/guides/data-glossary/open-file-formats

which supports that MP4 is NOT an open format. further, the standard itself explicitly forbids reproduction:

> All IEC Publications are protected by the publisher's copyright and no part of any IEC Publication can be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means (graphic, electronic or mechanical including photocopying) without the written permission of the publisher (please see Copyright on IEC Standards in Database Format).

https://www.iec.ch/copyright

which means its not a https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_license, and in turn the format is not open. if other or better links are available, I am open to adding them. however the current references (basically just the LOC link) are not enough on their own to determine that MP4 is an open format.

Summary of dispute by VQuakr

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

Disagreement on the applicability of sources and the content supported by those sources in the context of WP:SYNTH and WP:USERGENERATED, though the latter may already be resolved.

A markedly similar dispute between the same participants (except myself) is happening at ISO base media file format. I believe both articles should be included in the scope of this dispute resolution effort if the case is accepted. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MP4 file_format discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other party on their user talk page. Also, the editor who provided the Third Opinion should be listed and notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the editor providing the third opinion and notified the other party and the editor providing the third opinion. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statement by moderator (MP4)

I am ready to act as the moderator of this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Are there any article content issues other than whether the file format should be listed as an open file format?

We should list the MP4 format as an open file format if reliable sources state that it is an open format. We should not try to determine from the definition of an open file format and from technical information about the file format whether MP4 is an open file format, because that would be original research. Is there a disagreement about whether any source is a reliable source? If so, we should ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard for an opinion on source reliability. Will each editor please state what sources they are relying on. Are there any issues about whether the format is an open format that are not about the question of how to label the format? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (MP4)

The source I presented is the description of the MP4 format from the Sustainability of Digital Formats website from the Library of Congress's Digital Preservation program. An archived version shows that since 2012 the Library of Congress describes the format as an "open standard" and this document as a "fully realized draft" (the most mature draft status; all statuses are called "drafts"); the document was updated in 2023 with no change to "open standard". An open file format is a format specified by an open standard. Previous RSN comments on the Library of Congress appear generally favorable in a number of contexts, but it seems no one has ever asked about its suitability regarding technical or legal information, as is the case in this dispute. The article on Digital preservation cites the Library of Congress several times.

An issue has been raised about whether MP4 is open format, using as sources advocacy group Open Knowledge Foundation's The Open Definition via a draft document at opendefinition.org/ofd/, and the glossary of the National Library of Medicine at www.nnlm.gov/guides/data-glossary/open-file-formats. These sources address the definition of open format, not whether MP4 is an open format. The issue extended to the article on Open file format, where I marked a central claim in this dispute as not verifiable explicitly by its source, starting another edit war that removed the marking without discussion. Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I opened an RSN request on the reliability of Library of Congress sources. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will each editor please state what sources they are relying on. The only source I have seen discussed (discounting user-generated sources and sources whose use would be original synthesis) is the Library of Congress source above. I do not have concerns about this source's reliability, but the way it supports the "open" descriptor of the format is less than ideal because it is a single word in a data table rather than a discussion in prose with commentary. Even with this limitation, in the absence of reliable sources stating otherwise I agree it is an adequate source to use in the infobox. Are there any issues about whether the format is an open format that are not about the question of how to label the format? No, to the best of my understanding. VQuakr (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

added a source above Svnpenn (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any sources in this section aside from the Library of Congress link. VQuakr (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this link demonstrated the ambiguity in definition:

Open standard#Comparison of definitions

link was originally provided by Fernando Trebien, but only serves to show that the matter is contested. which is why I suggest that the key "open format" be removed or changed to something with consensus. Svnpenn (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internal links are not sources per WP:CIRCULAR, and do not inform a discussion about article content. VQuakr (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hopefully you can then understand why arguing about a topic that has little to no official sources is a good use of anyone time. hence why I suggested that we stop the argument and just remove or use an alternate key such as "open license" or "open access" Svnpenn (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the value of the "open format" specifier is contested, I argue that we should simply remove it, or change the key to something else, such as "open license" or "open access". this will quickly solve the debate. the "free format" value is not contested, nor are "open license" or "open access" that I am aware of. so to summarize:

1. "open format" is contested, value could be YES or NO
2. "free format" is not contested, value should be NO
3. "open license" is not contested, value should be NO
4. "open access" is not contested, value should be NO

Fernando Trebien point is that "open format" has an agreed upon value, when one of his own links argues against that point:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard#Comparison_of_definitions

Svnpenn (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This says nothing about the MP4 file format and using it would be WP:CIRCULAR. I brought this up in the discussion to help clarify the various meanings of the term “open” by different organizations. I also argued that some organizations on this list are much more influential than others. We should follow the judgment of a reliable secondary source regarding the common usage of terminology. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> This says nothing about the MP4 file format and using it would be WP:CIRCULAR.

"this" is ambiguous, so I will assume you mean the whole comment? if thats the case, I would direct you to these pages:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_base_media_file_format

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/MP4_file_format

both of which list the key "open format" and link here:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_file_format

I believe the value of "open format" should be NO, or alternatively we could remove the "open format" key, since its value is contested, or replace the key with another key such as "open license" or "open access".

> I brought this up in the discussion to help clarify the various meanings of the term “open” by different organizations.

right, but ironically the link actually argues against your own point, and only serves to add to the ambiguity of the proper value of "open format".

> We should follow the judgment of a reliable secondary source regarding the common usage of terminology

I agree, but in this case, as you've demonstrated with your previous link, consensus has not been reached on this topic.

Svnpenn (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: because one of the participants in this section has returned to editing the article ([7], [8]), I believe the dispute resolution should be closed and the case referred to ANI. VQuakr (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the edits in question bypass the previous point of contention, so I dont see how ANI applies here. the current disagreement appears to be unlikely to resolve, so the best course would be to remove the contested content, until such time as an agreement can be reached. did you have anything in the spirit of compromise to add? I have tried bending over backwards here to find a middle ground, and the other parties seem unwilling to move from their original position even a little. Svnpenn (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, you failed to mention that YOU have also returned to editing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_file_format&diff=prev&oldid=1212255999 Svnpenn (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RULEA only discusses editing the article, and I believe my edit summary made clear why I felt that particular template edit needed reversion with some urgency. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you're knowingly skating the rules, in order to keep your record "clean" and paint me in a bad light. both edits result in a change to the contested article. Svnpenn (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I think that this case should be referred to the ANI as well. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by moderator (MP4)

I do not want to fail a case immediately after it is open, because sometimes one or more of the editors only read the rules once and didn't understand that they were violating the rules. I will fail the case if an editor files a report at WP:ANI, but one of the reasons for this noticeboard is to prevent disputes from going to ANI. So I would like to try to restart this discussion.

Please read DRN Rule A again. I will repeat a few points. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions, and the participants will answer the questions. Be civil and concise. I am now asking the participants: Do you want to take part in moderated discussion, and do you agree to follow the rules? Moderated discussion will not result in sanctions on editors unless it fails. A report to WP:ANI usually results in somebody being sanctioned, so read the boomerang essay before going to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Reliable Source Noticeboard has said that the Library of Congress is a reliable source. I will add that they should not be described as a non-technical agency, because they are a depositary for data and are concerned with usability of the data.

I am asking each editor to state concisely why they think that MP4 should or should not be listed as an open format. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (MP4)

> I am now asking the participants: Do you want to take part in moderated discussion, and do you agree to follow the rules?

honestly I dont want to take part in moderated discussion, but it seems thats the only option at this point. if an option is available to "close" this discussion, and send it back to the original parties to resolve, I think that would be best. since this escalation started, the situation has changed. I am willing to compromise on the original point, and have offered some paths to resolution. However if a moderation discussion must continue, yes I will follow the rules, and if I encounter a new rule I will respect it after learning it.

I am not answering the question of "open format", because I think its an unanswerable question. links have been provided on both sides that show this ambiguity, and I think all parties agree that its not a clear answer. so it doesn't seem right at this point to continue arguing for one side of that question.

again my current suggestion is to remove the "open format" key, or to change the key to "open license" or "open access", because those keys will have a consensus for their value.

Svnpenn (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to fail a case immediately after it is open... Fair enough. Please read DRN Rule A again... Done; agreed. I agree to moderated discussion and the rules including regarding replies (sorry!). The infobox should show MP4 as an open format as is shown in this version, because the only reliable source presented so far describes the format as open. VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read DRN Rule A and agree to continue to be moderated. I still support the same same version of the article as VQuakr. I disagree with the latest changes during dispute resolution that removed the "Open format" field from the infobox and added an "Open license" field, for the reasons in this comment made 5 hours before these changes. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by moderator (MP4)

Moderated discussion at DRN is voluntary. An editor can decline to take part in moderated discussion, or can withdraw from moderated discussion. In that case, other forms of dispute resolution will be used. One editor wants to close this discussion and send it back to the original parties to resolve. I assume that means to resolve by discussion on the article talk page. The risk is that another editor may choose to file a report at WP:ANI. So I will ask all the editors whether they want to continue to take part in moderated discussion.

If so, please state concisely why MP4 should or should not be listed as an open format. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by editors (MP4)

> So I will ask all the editors whether they want to continue to take part in moderated discussion.

I have suggested several compromise solutions, including:

1. remove "open format" key
2. replace "open format" key with "open license"
3. replace "open format" key with "open access"
4. add "open license" key
5. add "open access" key

all of which I believe have been rejected by the other editors. in addition, I dont believe either of them have provided any compromise solutions. the other two editors demonstrate an unwillingness to compromise, even in the face of obvious contention on the question of the content. if that remains the case, then I suppose the best course is to continue with moderated discussion, as perhaps a moderation can help to find a compromise solution. however if the other two editors can communicate a willingness to compromise, then I would like to send the matter back to the original parties. I am willing to find a compromise here.

> If so, please state concisely why MP4 should or should not be listed as an open format.

I will say again, I do not think the question of "open format" should be answered on Wikipedia, at least not at this time. I dont think compelling evidence or consensus have been provided on either side.

Svnpenn (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask all the editors whether they want to continue to take part in moderated discussion

I want to continue taking part in moderation.

state concisely why they think that MP4 should or should not be listed as an open format

The MP4 file format is described as an open standard by the Library of Congress (LOC), the only reliable secondary source we've seen so far. That's the main reason why MP4 should be listed as an open format.

A file format is open if it is specified by an open standard. This is explicitly stated by two references in the Open file format article: LINFO.org (4th paragraph) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (4th paragraph). The other references in the article do not contradict these two references, except for one reference by an advocacy group which I have contested. The LOC's definition of open format (2nd paragraph of the Disclosure section) states that it is a standard that is documented and approved by a recognized standards body and contrasts that with proprietary format for which documentation is not publicly available. These definitions mostly correspond to the text and references in Wikipedia in Open file format and Proprietary format.

Assessing MP4 as an "open format" based on the definition of the term may not belong to the scope of this dispute resolution but may help it. I think that MP4 should be listed as an open format because:

• None of these references (LOC, LINFO and the Commonwealth of Massachussets) say that an open file format must be specified by an open access standard (one that is made available at no cost), although some organizations may adopt this requirement to assess a standard as "open", as shown in Open standard § Comparison of definitions. Unlike the LOC, these organizations are primary sources for the definition of open format that should be given different weights according to their notability in legal and technical fields, and some of them are advocacy groups or individuals and should not be considered.
• I contested one statement in the Open file format article which incorrectly associates the notion of open file format with open license (confusingly synonymous with free license and implying open access). This incorrect association is not explicitly supported by the reference in the text, which is a draft by an advocacy group and is therefore not verifiable and cannot be used to define open file format nor to assess MP4 as an open format. The other uses of the term "open format" in the Open file format and Proprietary file format articles match the definition of the LOC with respect to no requirement of open access (no requirement of availabily at zero cost to be considered open).

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can continue moderated discussion. MP4 should be listed as an open format per WP:WEIGHT and WP:V because the only reliable source presented describes the format as open. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by moderator (MP4)

It appears that two editors say that MP4 should be listed as an open format, and one editor says that it should not be listed as an open format. The reasons for listing it as an open format are clearly stated, and rely on a secondary reliable source. So what is the reason for saying that it is not an open format?

One editor says that the two other editors have shown an unwillingness to compromise. There are some questions where compromise is not feasible, and this appears to be one of them. However, they also say: I do not think the question of "open format" should be answered on Wikipedia, at least not at this time. Do they mean that it should not be answered for MP4, or that Wikipedia should not be indicating whether formats are or are not open, because of the ambiguities of definitions of what is an open format? If the issue is that Wikipedia should not be stating that formats are or are not open, then maybe WikiProject Software would be a better place for the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third statements by editors (MP4)

> what is the reason for saying that it is not an open format?

I am intentionally not commenting on if MP4 is an open format, because I dont think the question is answerable currently, either on Wikipedia or broadly. The other editors have given reasons why one might consider MP4 an open format. for a reason why you might say its not an open format, you simply need to look here:

> An open file format is licensed with an open license

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_file_format

because MP4 does not have an open license, it cannot be an open format. this statement is further backed by this:

> file format with no restrictions, monetary or otherwise, placed upon its use

https://opendatahandbook.org/glossary/en/terms/open-format

this definition is violated by MP4, as it has both a monetary restriction:

1. https://www.iso.org/standard/83102.html
2. https://www.iso.org/standard/79110.html

and a copyright restriction:

> © 2020 ISO/IEC — All rights reserved

1. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso-iec:14496:-14:ed-3
2. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso-iec:14496:-12:ed-7

finally, one of the editors own links proves against their own point, in that it shows how different international bodies define "open format" differently:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard#Comparison_of_definitions

Again, I am no longer trying to answer the question "is MP4 an open format", because I dont think its an answerable question, as I hope the above demonstrates.

> Do they mean that it should not be answered for MP4, or that Wikipedia should not be indicating whether formats are or are not open, because of the ambiguities of definitions of what is an open format?

Other formats have a clearly defined answer, for example:

> WebM is an open media file format designed for the web.

https://webmproject.org/about/faq

such a clear answer is not currently available for MP4 that I am aware of. I have today contacted the International Organization for Standarization (ISO) to try to better answer this question.

Svnpenn (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  – 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

• Ali Amin Gandapur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk · contribs)
• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I think moving the Sobia Shahid audio to her page is a good idea, but I don't get why Sheriff keeps deleting my other edits. Mine are neutral, unlike his, which claimed, "Critics say his appointment as Chief Minister has damaged the party's image and ability to govern well." Gandapur has only been in power for a few days, so how did they come to that conclusion? I get that it's written in the article but we are supposed to maintain neutrality on Wikipedia.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Ali Amin Gandapur#Avoiding an Edit war

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe that a third-person can help us reach an agreement and resolve the dispute.

Summary of dispute by SheriffIsInTown

I observed their effort to delete information regarding his misogynistic comments towards Maryam Nawaz and the addition of an irrelevant threat attributed to Sobia Shahid from an unidentified Twitter account, which seemed like an endeavor to censor information and shift blame onto the victim. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete the comments about Maryam, I actually included it here WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly see the whole chunk regarding Maryam being deleted which was the big reason for dispute commencement. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "chunk" your referring to is just one sentence about Maryam. I rewrote it and included the exact details of what he said with a source. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By "chunk," I mean that you eliminated all the information related to Maryam in your initial edit. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The initial edit is irrelevant as I corrected it in the next one. This doesn't explain why you continued to delete it. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent edit also had its issues, which led to its reversal. You removed the sourced information from the start which captured the gist of everything about his remarks against Maryam. Additionally, what you assert you added concerning Maryam barely scratched the surface of the offensive remarks he made about her. Furthermore, your attempt to mitigate sexism against Sobia by introducing unwarranted and unrelated content from an unidentified Twitter account was questionable. Thus, the burden of explanation should fall on you instead of me in this instance. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Amin Gandapur discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - Discussion has been in progress on the article talk page for only a few hours, not 24 hours. Continue discussion on the article talk page for 24 hours. Be civil, and comment on content, not contributors. I am neither opening nor closing this case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by moderator (Ali Amin Gandapur)

I am ready to act as the moderator. Please read DRN Rule D. The subject of the article is a Pakistani politician, and articles about Pakistani politics and politicians are covered by the ArbCom decision on India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. I will repeat a few rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. That already hasn't worked. The moderator (me) will ask the questions, and is the representative of the community. The editors will address their answers to the moderator and the community.

Do the editors agree to abide by the rules, and agree that the contentious topic procedure is in effect?

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the encyclopedia. So I will ask each editor: What do you want to change in the article, or what do you want to leave alone that another editor wants to change? You don't need to say why at this time. I will ask that in the next round. Exactly what is the content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (Ali Amin Gandapur)

  – New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Sri Lanka Armed Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Oz346 (talk · contribs)
• Cossde (talk · contribs)
• UtoD (talk · contribs)
• Petextrodon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page, Cossde claims through his edits that the UN report supports the following sentence which he has added, which states "with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises."

The UN report on Sri Lanka says nothing of the sort, and he has been apprised of this multiple times: [9], [10], [11]

Despite this he has repeatedly reinserted this sentence not supported by the citations into the article.

The UN report which is cited in the news articles after Cossde's OR sentence explicitly states this on p.65, and actually contradicts Cossde's claim:

"the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime (Rule 97, ICRC Study))."^[1]

There is also no mention from any of the reliable sources cited that the "LTTE attempted to create an humanitarian crises" as he claims. It has failed WP:BURDEN yet he persists.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces#Disruptive_revert/edit_war_by_user_Cossde

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By checking that the added sentence is supported by the existing citations or not, and to decide whether to keep it in the article.

Summary of dispute by Cossde

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

Oz346 is correct in quoting of the UN report, however as ususal Oz346 has cherrypicked points, avoiding broader context. Said qoute comes from the chaperter titled "Legal Evaluation of Allegations" which states that "current evaluation is limited to the legal characterization of the allegations; the Panel's view that a certain allegation would not violate internaitonal law should in no way be interpreted as an endorsement of the underlying activity." The UN report then goes to state that "The Panel's determination of credible allegations against the LTTE associated with the final stages of the war reveal six core categories of potential serious violations: (i) using civilains as a hunman buffer (ii) killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control; (iii) using military equipment in the proximity of civilians; (iv) forced recruitment of children (v) forced labour; and (vi) killing of civilians through suicide attacks.". At one point the report states "Civilians were increasingly sacrificed as dispensable "cannon fodder" while the LTTE fought to protect its senior leadership.". It also mentions that "the role of the Tamil diaspora, which provided vital moral and material support to the LTTE over decades, and some of whom refuse to acknowledge the LTTE's role in the humanitarian disaster in the Vanni, creating a further obstacle to accuntability and sustainable peace". Frances Harrison in his book Still Counting the Dead: Survivors of Sri Lanka’s Hidden War does mention that credible evidence that the LTTE itself wanted to deliberately create a humanitarian disaster. Cossde (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Human buffers is not the same as human shields, as the UN report explicitly mentions. None of the sources cited after your sentence makes the claim of human shields, so it is original research.

2. Likewise, the phrase you added claiming the "LTTE attempted to create a humanitarian crisis" is more original research not supported by the references cited. Having a role in the humanitarian disaster is not the same as "attempting to create one". Oz346 (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by UtoD

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

Summary of dispute by Petextrodon

The dispute is over the following sentence that user Cossde added and user UtoD re-added: "with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises"

Evidently neither user has bothered to read the cited source properly since the UN report explicitly contradicts the claim on the use of human shields as explained to them multiple times by myself and user Oz346. Furthermore, by placing that sentence right after "with most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war being blamed on Sri Lankan Army shelling", an impression is created that most civilian casualties were caused by the LTTE's use of "human shields" although the cited source does not state this. --- Petextrodon (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka Armed Forces discussion

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

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.