Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 231

Summary of dispute by ScienceMan123

As I see it, this dispute centers around the following questions:

1. Should Johston's notable daughter be linked from the "children" entry in his info box?
2. Is it relevant to include mention of David Johnston's family ski trips with the Trudeau family?
3. Should Johnston's comments on his relationship with China be included in the article?
4. Should mention of Johnston's daughters' attendance at Chinese universities be included in the article?

I would answer yes to all of the above. For the first, because it is standard practice, and for the others, because these topics have become a central focus of a Canadian political scandal.

For example, the following articles on David Johnston mention his family's ski trips with the Trudeau family:

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]}

Summary of dispute by Darryl Kerrigan

Thanks Miesianiacal. It is unfortunate that these issues haven't been worked out on the talk page, but in the circumstances this is a positive step. The disputes seem to be about inclusion of details about Johnston's daughters (and their education in Chinese universities) and Johnston's links to China. This is all happening in the backdrop of a Chinese election interference scandal in Canada. I think it is appropriate to note some of the pretty intense criticism that Johnston has faced since his appointment to investigate, and since he released his first report, but some of the edits seem to have gone too far. I expect this content should be dealt with more in the "scandal" article, and less (but somewhat) in his main article. Worth noting last week there was substantial criticism from journalist, politicians, academics including , , , , , , , , , , , etc. All of that said, I think this can be summarized briefly in his article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

David Johnston discussion

To expand slightly on the summary above, there are, I think, three sub-disputes within the larger one about the line between encyclopedic and biased, namely:

1. Is where Johnston's daughters attended university relevant to Johnston and, if so, should only one location be mentioned?
2. Is detail about the resort where Johnston went skiing near his cottage relevant to Johnston? And
3. Are Johnston's visits to other universities while he was Principal and Vice-Chancellor of a university relevant to Johnston and, if so, should only visits to Chinese universties be mentioned and are extensive quotes from his speeches at Chinese universities necessary? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (Johnston)

Please read the usual rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Do the editors agree to moderated discussion and to accept the ground rules? Please make a brief statement as to whether you agree to moderated discussion. If so, you may also make a brief statement as to what article content you want to change, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Johnston)

I would be happy to contribute to this process. I think for the process to be successful, all editors involved will need to participate including ScienceMan123.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm up for moderated discussion. (T'was I who requested it.) My main concern about the article, at present, is that it places very specific emphasis on Johnston's past associations with Chinese institutions, to the near-exclusion of all others; through his academic and viceregal careers, he formed connections with institutions in many countries. My concern about the article, in future, is that more mentions of China will make the imbalance even worse. There is already mention in the article of Johnston's appointment as rapporteur on Chinese interference in Canadian elections being criticized because of his past associations with China, which is expanded on in the article on the allegations of interference. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy to participate. I believe that due to extensive media coverage of Johnston's alleged conflicts of interest with respect to both China and the Trudeau family, including coverage of the specific points being debated in this dispute, the factual basis for these allegations must be included in his biography. This would necessarily result in greater emphasis on his associations with Chinese institutions than his associations with institutions of other countries, since his associations with non-Chinese institutions have not become a central media topic of a Canadian political scandal. (It is worth noting that he does appear to also have had the most extensive associations with Chinese institutions during his time as university president, so these should naturally receive the most coverage, regardless.) ScienceMan123 (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Johnston)

We have agreement to the rules, and so will begin moderated discussion. I will first remind the editors to be civil and concise, and to comment on content, not contributors. The identification of specific questions has been helpful. I will list the specific questions that have been raised.

1. Should Johston's notable daughter be linked from the "children" entry in his info box?
2. Is it relevant to include mention of David Johnston's family ski trips with the Trudeau family?
3. Should Johnston's comments on his relationship with China be included in the article?
4. Should mention of Johnston's daughters' attendance at Chinese universities be included in the article?
5. Is where Johnston's daughters attended university relevant to Johnston and, if so, should only one location be mentioned?
6. Is detail about the resort where Johnston went skiing near his cottage relevant to Johnston?
7. Are Johnston's visits to other universities while he was Principal and Vice-Chancellor of a university relevant to Johnston and, if so, should only visits to Chinese universties be mentioned and are extensive quotes from his speeches at Chinese universities necessary?

Will each editor please answer Yes or No to each question? We do not need the reasons for the answers at this time. We will get to that later. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for summarizing the questions that have been raised. My answers are "yes" to questions 1-5, and "no" to question 6.

For question 7 clause 1, "Are Johnston's visits to other universities while he was Principal and Vice-Chancellor of a university relevant to Johnston," my answer is that "it depends on the visit and context".

For question 7 clause 2, "should only visits to Chinese universties be mentioned," my answer is "no".

For question 7 clause 3 , "are extensive quotes from his speeches at Chinese universities necessary?" my answer is "no". But just because something is not necessary to include does not mean that it is necessary to remove. ScienceMan123 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I will also mention that since @Miesianiacal has been contacting administrators for assistance regarding my alleged sockpuppetry, while I in turn suspect that said user is a staffer at Rideau Hall (our governor general's office) with an undisclosed conflict of interest, perhaps we might be able to include an admin examination of both of our IP records as part of this dispute resolution? ScienceMan123 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Johnston)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Bgsu98

I was fine with your edit and only slightly tweaked the wording: The Amazing Race 31 traveled over 25,000 miles across four continents and ten countries, including first-time visits to Uganda and Laos, although Laos had previously been visited on The Amazing Race Vietnam. I didn’t see a problem with it, although another user deleted it altogether. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sportsfan 1234

Summary of dispute by Masem

Summary of dispute by 96.48.239.44

Summary of dispute by Xoruz

The Amazing Race 31 discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by koavf

This article had unsourced information, including claims about living persons. Per WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP, I removed the unsourced claims. All content on Wikipedia that is not common knowledge needs a citation, either in the text or in the form of an inline citation. Additionally, Wikipedia cannot cite itself, so just linking to another article that itself has sources is not sufficient. I don't know what about anything I just wrote is controversial, nor do I know why anyone wants to add unsourced information to the encyclopedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert discussion

•  Volunteer note: The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The other editor has nevertheless already responded here, and the dispute is posted on the article’s Talk page. Can you please explain the policy under which duplication on the other editor’s Talk page is now still required ? Chrisdevelop (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (Priscilla)

Please read the usual rules. It appears that the main issue is whether to include an Awards table. Are there any other article content issues? Do the editors want to take part in moderated discussion subject to the rules? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Priscilla)

The dispute is not about having a table listing awards. The dispute is about having information that is unsourced (in an article about living persons). I am happy to discuss whatever. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about unsourced information should be flagged as such, e.g. ^{[citation needed]}, since it isn't possible to add citations to a table if the table has been removed from the article, as happened here. Tables are particularly arduous to create, and to delete one is overkill that undoes a great deal of work by other editors, and should not be the first course of action if other options are available, such as a discussion on the article's Talk Page. It is neither necessary nor desirable to provide a citation for every single contribution, unless it is likely to be challenged. As such, the Awards table has been up for a very long time and has hitherto been unchallenged. A cluster of redundant citations impedes readability and adds superfluous bulk to the article. Priscilla is highly notable, as are the awards the film won, nearly all linked through to other articles that provide corroboration from reliable sources. Outside of Wikipedia, readers can easily verify the contributions, and there are no potentially defamatory claims about living persons in the table that I can find. I have gone through all the awards, and they're all verifiable in Wikipedia's existing citations, or easy to find. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you wrote this: it's not in reference to what Robert wrote above and doesn't answer his questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Priscilla)

Please read the usual rules again. I usually ask editors to read the rules again. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator and the community. User:Chrisdevelop has not answered whether they will engage in moderated discussion subject to the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I now infer that the issue is that there was a table of awards, and one editor removed it because it was unsourced, and the other editor wants it restored. Is that correct? Can it be restored, with sources? Is there an issue about the removal of a table because it did not have sources? Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

First statement by Koavf (Priscilla)

"I now infer that the issue is that there was a table of awards, and one editor removed it because it was unsourced, and the other editor wants it restored. Is that correct?" Yes. "Can it be restored, with sources?" Please. "Is there an issue about the removal of a table because it did not have sources?" Yes. "Are there any other issues?" No. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

First statement by Chrisdevelop (Priscilla)

Because I opened this disupute requesting intervention by moderators, I assumed it was obvious I agreed to intervention by moderators, but to remove all doubt, I would like to place on record that I agree to it.

The Awards table (originally titled ‘Accolades’, before becoming a subtitle) first appeared in the Revision as of 08:45, 8 April 2016 and in the 7 years that have elapsed since, this table has been updated with numerous edits. According to the Page Information, at the time of posting this, there have been 25661 page views of the article in the past 30 days. Rounding down to 25,000 as a mean monthly access rate from the time the table went up, this article has been viewed roughly 2 million times by members of the public, any one of whom can sign in as editor and either challenge the Awards table, edit it, or flag issues, such as by ^{[citation needed]}. Yet this has never happened until the day that User:koavf saw fit to delete the table entirely without giving other editors a chance to provide citations for the contributions he was disputing, or being specific about which cells on the table he considered fell foul of the three Wikipedia policies he adduced. Meanwhile, I have notified the originating editor (IP address only ID provided) who contributed the table that this attempt was made to remove it.

Under Wikipedia WP:CITE policy, citations should be provided where a contribution is likely to be challenged. For example, a claim that ‘water is found in large quantities on asteroids’ is not common knowledge and would require verification from a reliable source, whereas ‘water is usually used for washing’ would not likely be challenged. Surviving 7 years is a decent track record for this Awards table. Surely, after 2 million views, if a challenge was likely, especially one so serious that it warranted summary excisement of the entire Awards table without discussion, it would have occurred by now?

In the article’s Talk page discussion, Koavf stated that he deleted the Awards table ‘because it had no sources’, and that it violated the following policies:

WP:V policy, which states that ‘verifiability’ means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.

WP:OR which is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

WP:BLP policy, which requires that contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately.

Nearly all the entries on the Awards table are links to other Wikipedia articles, which means they’re notable enough to have an article. This is not recursively “using Wikipedia to prove Wikipedia” as asserted by Koavf, it is providing a directory to articles that provide details about the awards cited. If you drill down, you will soon enough get to citations if you’re concerned about verifiability of claims. To copy all 72 citations back so they appear in the source table is going to result in what will look like citation spam.

Let’s walk through just three of these:

• The first entry in the Awards table is AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies. In this section there is a table wherein there is not a single citation provided, moreover, there are living persons listed. Why has Koavf not deleted this table on the same grounds he gave for removing the Awards table in the Priscilla article? All but 6 of cells on this table drill down to another article.
• The next entry is AACTA_Award_for_Best_Film. From 1976 to 2023 there is not a single citation provided, moreover, there are living persons listed, many either with no article, or redlinked. Why has Koavf likewise not deleted this table on the same grounds he gave for removing the Awards table in the Priscilla article?
• Then we have AACTA Award for Best Direction, and again zero citations, and there are ‘living persons’ cited in almost every cell.

I invite you to walk through the links in every other cell, and confirm the same applies in most of the tables that show up. Again, why has Koavf not deleted all those tables too? Like the Awards table, they are directories to other articles, so none of them have citations, while all refer to living persons. So, what are his reasons for honing in just on the Priscilla Awards table? Had it not been for my having been alerted to the deletion of the Awards table, aside from mention of its Oscar win in the Lede, the film would have gone from having 11 wins to having zero wins and zero nominations, according to this article, and some hapless editor would be sure to create anew an Awards table.

Koavf states that the Awards makes “claims about living persons” without detailing what those claims are, other than on the Talk page, where he he asks, “why are you adding claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations?” However, the Awards table he deleted does not state that any person, living or otherwise, “lost awards”; the table itemises only those who won them, or were nominated for them. If a reader wants to find out more, all they have to do is click any of the links in the table.

Readers can with minimal difficulty verify that the cells in the Awards table come from a reliable source, by following the links through to their targets. It is not true to assert via adducing of WP:OR that no published sources exist for Priscilla, one of the most notable in cinematic history, if dozens of extensively documented awards, huge box office, spin-off musicals and live shows, alongside the 2 million Wikipedia views this article has enjoyed over the past 7 years are anything to go by. There is nothing ‘contentious’ I can see concerning the nominated living persons in this Awards table, but if there is, then Koavf needs to explain what that is. In short, he needs to give a blow by blow justification for deleting this table; alternatively he should flag it, or fix it. Otherwise, I view his summary deletion of the Awards table as tantamount to vandalism.

I also feel it incumbent to comment on the patronising and paternalistic righteousness of tone at times evinced by Koavf in his dialogue with me on the edit notes, the Talk page and here, which I believe is in contravention of Assume good faith. Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Priscilla)

I repeated my question of whether the filing party agreed to moderated discussion because I was also asking whether they agreed to the rules that I provided. Please read the rules a third time, so that I can restate a few points. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements often have the purpose of making the poster feel better, but often do not convey information to the other parties. User:Chrisdevelop – Your post is too long.

Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so we talk about the article. Changing the behavior of editors is not in the scope of this noticeboard.

It seems that there is one issue, the removal of the table of awards, which was done because it was unsourced. We have at least two ways to go forward on the issue. First, we can discuss whether the removal was correct or incorrect. The purpose of such discussion will be to decide whether to restore the table in its previous unsourced form. Second, we can discuss the addition of sources to the table. If we add sources to the table, there will be no need to discuss whether to restore it without sources. If the table linked to other Wikipedia articles that have sources, we can simply copy those sources.

Does anyone have a brief plan to propose about the addition of sources to the table? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything else concise to say or ask? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by Chrisdevelop (Priscilla)

There were three reasons adduced for summary deletion without discussion, as itemised in my previous statement, Original Research, Verifiability and Biography of Living Persons.

If this table did not link to corroborative articles that verify the awards, then I would have agreed it needed citations. However, this table is a directory; it is not a repository of information about the awards. If by definition a table ‘without sources’ has to be deleted, then all the tables it links to should be deleted too, as per my previous statement, since none of them have citations either, and all nominate ‘living persons’. Why are these linked-to tables that document the awards still allowed to remain there, e.g. this table, if the identical reasons for deleting this Awards table are upheld? I am confident as I can be that if I were to delete all the directory tables linked to from the article, I would be nominated for vandalism. This hitherto unchallenged Awards table of seven years’ standing and roughly 2 million views is simply a directory to other articles that corroborate the wins/nominations, and therefore it does not need to be cluttered with citations when this information is present and verifiable in the linked articles. I will also wager that if an editor with time on their hands adds citations for every name and every award, when these are already linked to in the encyclopedia, they will almost certainly be reverted as redundant. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by Koavf (Priscilla)

"If the table linked to other Wikipedia articles that have sources, we can simply copy those sources." Agreed. It's a trivial problem to solve if someone wants to take it up. I personally don't and according to WP:V (emphasis in the original, footnotes turned into brackets): All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports [A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § Citations, etc.] the contribution.[Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.] This material should not be added back without citations since it has been removed, yet, here we are.

"Does anyone have a brief plan to propose about the addition of sources to the table?" I did not intend to fix the problem personally, only diagnose it (i.e., I just removed the unsourced claims, I was not going to bother trying to prove or disprove another person's claims).

"Does anyone have anything else concise to say or ask?" I just hope that the conversation is fruitful and stays on topic. If anyone else can please tell me where I am wrong, let me know: I believe that content on Wikipedia needs to have sources, and there is a particularly high burden of proof and standard of evidence for articles that make claims about living persons. What am I missing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Priscilla)

It appears that there is a policy question. The question is whether a table is consistent with the verifiability policy if it consists of links to other Wikipedia articles and does not have its own references because it relies on the ability of the reader to click through the linked articles that do have references. It appears that the two editors disagree over that point of that policy, so that one editor said that the table was compliant because it linked to other articles that were references, and the other editor removed the table because it did not cite sources. Is that correct? If so, I will ask at Village Pump whether the verifiability policy requires references in the table itself, Do the editors agree to rely on guidance from other experienced editors on a policy question? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by Koavf (Priscilla)

I think that's correct and I would be interested in clarification, as I solicited it. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by Chrisdevelop (Priscilla)

Thank you, Robert McClenon for your ongoing interest in resolving this dispute. Your summation is correct as far as it goes and I support your proposed involvement of Village Pump, however there remains the issue of the WP:BLP policy violation adduced by the deleting editor, in respect of which he asked “why are you adding claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations?” Out of the three Wikipedia policy violations adduced by the editor, only WP:BLP infraction mandates summary removal of a contribution 'without discussion'. Both WP:OR and WP:V, however, require only that the violation be flagged, since it would be clearly impossible for another editor to fix a problem, if the contribution manifesting the problem had been deleted, as has happened here. I cannot see where in the table there was any claim about a living person losing awards, and so this needs to be resolved before we can address the sources question. Otherwise the table will only be deleted again, if not by one of those present, then by another editor further down the track.

Regarding the sources question, under WP:V, a citation is required for any contribution that is "likely to be challenged". Common sense tells me that if a contribution was likely to be challenged, it would have been challenged a lot sooner than after 7 years and 2 million views, as for this table. Burden of proof has thereby already implicitly been satisfied by the table's longevity, thus a new burden of proof is incumbent upon whoever deletes it, viz. proof of policy violations. Moreover, if the action to delete any directory table that has no inline citations is upheld, then this will create a precedent that will impact not only every article linked to from this Awards table but practically every directory table on Wikipedia. As an example, AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies would need to be deleted under such an interpretation of the policy, because as a directory table, it hasn't got a single inline citation, since every cell drills down to another article where verification can be found. If on the other hand, it is flagged and time allowed for it to remain until inline citations can be added by drilling down and retrieving them and then copying back to the source table, then this will add roughly 100 citations to the AACTA Awards article, just on account of this table, taking the count from 64 that are already there, to 164 as a result of citation bloat. Some of these would also need to be copied back to the Priscilla Awards table. I cannot see how this article is improved by either deleting its Awards table so no-one can see it, thus no-one can improve it, or peppering the table with citations when this information is already present in the linked to articles. Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Priscilla)

I have asked for comments at Village Pump, and I have received comments, including a pointer to a recently archived discussion, but the comments are inconclusive. I see four possible ways to resolve this dispute:

• 1. User:Koavf can agree to restore the table, on the grounds that it is not likely to be challenged, because it was not challenged for seven years until they removed it.
• 2. User:Chrisdevelop can agree to the removal of the table. This seems undesirable, because the table contains useful information, but it is one way to resolve the content dispute.
• 3. An editor can provide sources and restore the table. This will result in a large number of notes being added to the article. Articles that have tables often have large numbers of supporting notes. This is the most desirable resolution, but it requires work by a volunteer editor. Merely agreeing that sources should be added to the table is not a resolution because it makes the sourcing of the table Someone else's problem, which, as Doug Adams explains, is a method of cloaking the table, making it almost invisible, and it will be invisible until it is added to the article.
• 4. An RFC can be used to choose between option 1 and option 2. If an editor provides sources for the table, this stops the RFC.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Does either editor want to agree to the other editor's solution? If not, does either editor have an option 5? If not, the editors should be ready to submit the issue to an RFC.

Be civil and concise. Many of the statements have been too long. Overly long statements make the editor feel better, but do not persuade the community better than concise statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Koavf (Priscilla)

"Does either editor want to agree to the other editor's solution?" I do not agree with solution 1, as I do not agree with inserting unsourced information into Wikipedia.

"If not, does either editor have an option 5?" I do not see another option--good summary, Robert.

"If not, the editors should be ready to submit the issue to an RFC." I am willing to have this go to an RfC.

Thanks for this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Priscilla)

The draft RFC is available for review at Talk:The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert/RFC One. I will consider proposed changes to the wording of the RFC before I move it to the article talk page. When it is moved to the article talk page, I will insert the {{RFC}} template which will activate it. Do not put your statements in the draft RFC at this time. It isn't the real thing yet, or, rather, it isn't in the real place yet. Any comments about the wording of the RFC should be made before I activate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by Chrisdevelop (Priscilla)

Thank you for setting up this RFC, however before making it live, the question I asked several times remains unanswered, concerning the deleting editor's question: “Why are you adding claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations?” Out of the three Wikipedia policy violations adduced by the editor (WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP), only WP:BLP warrants deletion without discussion, otherwise if the table is disappeared from view, future editors will be unlikely to add inline citations, perhaps being unaware it ever existed. If the deleting editor can demonstrate I added claims that living persons lost awards with no inline citations, then I will agree to the removal of such claims, but not to the deletion of the table. If the deleting editor can likewise show which contributions in the table have no reliable, published sources or that are likely to be challenged out of the blue, and why, after remaining unchallenged for 7 years and 2 million views, then he can add citations himself, rather than making this someone else's problem. The proper way to flag a need for inline citations is by ^{[citation needed]}, not arbitrary deletion of the entire Awards table. This Awards table is not plain, unverified black text, it links to articles that provide sources. May I suggest therefore that the RFC statement needs fleshing out as to the pros and cons, since this will act as a precedent impacting all the linked-to tables and other directory tables that do not have inline citations either, such as the one cited above. AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies is but one of perhaps thousands more such tables that link to articles containing requisite verifiable sources, but do not themselves include inline citations either, yet which the deleting editor has left intact for as yet undisclosed reasons. Just as clicking a link to another article exits the article, an inline citation sends the reader elsewhere for verification; a link to another article that contains the verification is sufficient to uphold verifiability, otherwise a hapless volunteer will need to add 100 or so citations for AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies. If the decision to delete the Priscilla Awards table is upheld, then AACTA Awards#List of AACTA ceremonies has to be deleted too, presumably by Koavf who can defend his action on its Talk page, if someone notices it's disappeared. I view deleting without discussion a table that has stood unchallenged for 7 years with 2 million views as deletionism tantamount to vandalism. For the record, I ask that my responses be assessed on merits of my argument, rather than on the number of words needed; they're not to make me "feel better". Chrisdevelop (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by Chrisdevelop (Priscilla)

Fifth statement by Koavf (Priscilla)

Sixth statement by moderator (Priscilla)

I have copied the RFC on the article talk page, and in the near future a bot will invite random people to participate in it. User:Chrisdevelop says that the RFC needs fleshing out as to the pros and the cons. I agree that will be desirable, but I don't think that requires delaying the launch of the RFC (so I have launched it). The arguments for and against can be entered in the Discussion section; that is what it is for. The two principal editors are capable of making the statements for and against. I would suggest that the statement in favor of keeping the table be less than 450 words. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The policies that are involved in this dispute are verifiability and biographies of living persons. I don't see an issue of original research.

Deletion of material due to a dispute over verifiability is not vandalism.

I will leave this case open for a day or two for comments by the principals, and will then close it as being resolved by the RFC. However, during that time, comments by the principals will be seen by more editors if they are made in the Discussion section of the RFC on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for setting this up! Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Chrisdevelop (Priscilla)

Sixth statement by Koavf (Priscilla)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Adoring nanny

Adoring nanny and other very fast users protected and removed the additional warnings and changes that I made to the articles about their fallacy calling it vandalism without referring to the discussion board to talk about the issue and then increased the protection of their content to mute opposing parties. You may find the same pattern in any content regarding Iran's role in the Ukraine conflict by trying to make a high impact on history and to sabotage Wikipedia which tends to be a neutral source of information and not a fake news website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.65.91.16 (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Iran and_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Theonewithreason

Serbia discussion

• Volunteer Note - This appears to be a request for assistance in publicizing an RFC. That isn't the usual purpose of DRN, but it is a reasonable request. Is the filing editor asking for assistance in publicizing the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Pbritti

IP arbitrarily selected some facts, baselessly claimed these were the most essential points regarding LGBT rights in Ukraine, retroactively sourced these claims (ignoring the other material in that source), and edit-warred. These are not the most salient points regarding LGBT rights in Ukraine according to any reliable sources, instead reflecting prohibited original research and recentism. Several spurious claims of vandalism and bias suggests this IP may have an alternative objective here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [Corrected spelling error 02:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)]

Answer Zeroth comment: No, I request close. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Wpscatter

Summary of dispute by Ponyo

LGBT rights in Ukraine discussion

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors of this filing on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (Ukraine)

Does User:Pbritti want to engage in moderated discussion with the unregistered editor? If so, please read the usual rules and indicate that you agree to moderated discussion, and to the rules. Otherwise I will close the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth Statements by editors (Ukraine)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by OrionNimrod

I have no dispute regarding to the mentioned things, in talk page explained everything, morover I posted even myself 2 hours earlier than the opening of this noticeboard report 1 content from above what is allegedly disputed by me...

History of Transylvania discussion

• Volunteer Note - It appears that there isn't a content dispute. If so, I will close this case. If there is a content dispute, please state briefly what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave unchanged. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The situation seems to have stabilised. Thank you, @Robert McClenon for taking the time to look at this. Aristeus01 (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Kleuske

As I stated on the talk-page, articles are not product catalogs. The amount of technical detail on obscure sensors was excessive (144k) and a clear violation of WP:NOTCATALOG and lends WP:UNDUE weight to above mentioned sensors to the detriment of the actual encyclopedic article. I stand with those statements. I am not opposed to an overview of the product line, but an encyclopedic article is not a datasheet. All the interesting information is still accessible in the page history and should be hosted by Sony, not Wikipedia.Kleuske (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 181.167.210.101

Summary of dispute by Samson1357924

Summary of dispute by 188.243.182.16

Summary of dispute by Revwescol

Summary of dispute by 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29

Summary of dispute by Ricky81682

As I asked on the talk page, for those who scream it is useful, they can provide a link to a static page of the list on their off-wiki place. Else, for all the arguments that this is somehow useful, no one has presented a single source that discusses this 'list'. The fact that it is literally the exact same static list being inserted again and again tells me no one is actually interested in this as a wiki. You would assume some attempt at a moderate ground rather than these IP users and new accounts coming to revert back to a single giant list. The only point they do have is there are a number of similar listcrafts out there but this one has been the most recently fought. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that the bigger question and goal is to figure out how to preserve access to the information - I did see a variety of suggestions, some of which didn't pan out, so perhaps Wikisource and considering Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources would be useful. But statements like "those who scream it" and "no one is actually interested in this as a wiki" are confrontational towards people who are not long-time Wikipedia editors - please remember that Wikipedia:Assume good faith applies even if you are dealing with people who you think don't get it. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DanielSururuHK

Summary of dispute by Someone who's wrong on the internet

Summary of dispute by 2001:EE0:478D:F970:71D7:9220:B3F1:80BB

Summary of dispute by Woodroar

Summary of dispute by 84.65.105.173

Summary of dispute by 2003:D4:6F38:C090:7701:8776:C467:EA87

Summary of dispute by 331dot

• It's not controversial that a smaller, better sourced list would be permissible. I've said this more than once on the talk page. I'm not really sure why this case was opened. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that most of the supporters of the list seem to be concerned with what is "useful" to them personally, and less so with Wikipedia guidelines like WP:NOTDIRECTORY. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• IAR is not a license to do anything that is desired by persistent users that disagree with a decision. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

What EXMOR article supporters supposed from the speedy deletion of the spun-out independent list was that in fact there would be no accommodation for creating a "smaller, better sourced list." As I just wrote in another comment, there are first-party source problems with the list, and if that is really the problem, then perhaps steering users towards Wikisource would be a better alternative. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Guyfromturkey

Hi I am the person that wrote from multiple IP's due to forgetting to make account. (88.230.43.132---88.230.44.144) and tried my best to refute every single point in 88.230.43.132. I honestly think the Wikipedia is a whole isn't really dictated by rules but rather common sense.

Point 1 Wikipedia explictly allows this - Ignore All Rules -

Note:Sorry if this looks bit too raw. I don't know much about official editing so please don't wade it off as "wade of text nobody is going to read that" as it happened in talk page.

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules" explictly says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". This rule is over a decade old and the simple fact that how this page was fought all between the world from GMT-12 zones like Australia to the GMT 0 of Europe and Argentina.

Point 2 "Fancruft"

The fancruft is about how fans make excessively detailed lists about TV show characters. This page was edited by lots of people and I honestly don't understand why would anyone decide to fan over only one single companys sensors. Sadly I don't really have computer know how but I wouldn't say anyone would decide to only "fan" over only one company when improving Wikipedia.

The editors who want this list to get removed simply think "This list doesn't help anyone other than small subset of developers" which is horrendous because this benefitted not just some developers who nobody knows how many used but as I told multiple times. Friends and family that I showed this to help what to buy.

Only people "fanning" over this article were the editors putting call to delete on seperate Exmor list within an hour of its posting by RM12

Point 3 Wikipedia expliclty has criteria of putting technology lists and "Catalogue"

From the horses mouth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no":

Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it? If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

Both are fullfilled in article+list of Exmor or used to be before it was chopped off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contents/Lists

All these pages are listed in official mainpage of list of lists. There are explict tutorials on how to make lists and manuals of stlyes. I am willing to bet this page wasted/spent someone megabytes when all they wanted was lookup two CPU's meanwhile this page is 151k and is "too much" even though it also has details what phone used what.

More so these pages are actual catalogues with Part Numbers and suggested pricing in dollars and Exmor and isocell is none of that besides it's really weird how ISOCELL is biased how it's not removed but Exmor list is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_processors - This page has zero references is probably over megabytes and isn't even split but thanks to community feedback someone is planning to redesign the table. This page was edited over the years and it has less than 50 references

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_processors_(Broadwell-based) - zero references

The other point of this is that while admins that delete this list frequently cite how Wikipedia isn't a webhost are telling people to link to old static page before list was purged. Nobody is going to link to old revision clogging up webs pace in Wikipedia and ironically will be more waste of space

Point 4 Literally everyone in the internet wants this list to be killed.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/camerawiki/discuss/72157721917937671/

It was suggested in Wikipedia that this page was more fitting for camera-wiki multiple times but when I went there nobody was interested and editwar articles like this aren't welcome and I should go make my own website.

The only alternative is said to be "It's Sony's job to have this list" but let's be honest with ourselves. Why would they pan out such simple technical information about their sensors and smartphone companies?

The separate list was shot down in less than a week after getting marked for deletion within less than a hour by one of the admins that were opposed to this list even though seperate lists like that are allowed all the way across the wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Sony_Exmor_image_sensors&action=edit&redlink=1

Point 5 Internet is a plenty allready and whose is it to decide what is too much whetever size or detail?

It has been said multiple times that 151kilobytes of data being "too much". Meanwhile in reality even if someone were to use dialup it would take less than 5 seconds to download. which corresponds to what lag most browsers have loading a page. Wikipedia isn't going to bankrupt overnight because of web traffic of 151k of text while the logo image alone is probably double of that.

It is also said that how it can be done so only the "major" sensors should be included but how are we going to keep a track of that? What if one of the sensors not included in the list gets used in some smartphone? Will it be really worth it to save some pixels on someones screen to making a wikipedia contributor to have a easier to adding what phones used the sensor in "Notes" section?

There are already notability guidelines and "Should there be list" guideline I wrote above that are both checked.

Point 6 admin consensus?

The talk page of Admin kleuske has him saying how he "give no hoot" when asked why he does this and 331dot seems to be "no one is going to read this wall of text" when someone tried a detailed defense .

The RFC seems to be made by admins who simply read FANCRUFT CATALOGUE pages and simply agreed without much thought over "don't edit if there is no benefit / rules for lists" all the while a longtime Wikipedia user was simply left unresponded by the rest in the RFC

The other "catalogue" of ISOCELL sensors is simply left untouched and the person who actually listed type and number of references seems to be never involved here meanwhile the admins that do their best to purge this article talk a lot about "bad references" here don't say anything else and roundabout about their statements here

Point 7 this page is too noteworthy to be simply deleted

As banner stated. This list was used by XDA Developers news and congratulated over how community banded up to make such a useful list .

I am not the only person bothered by this as seen here which disproves "only small developers benefit from this page" claim

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66938457

As said before whose is it to say "Wikipedia isn't some camera buy trivia website"?

Summary

151k isn't all that big in age of 10 Gigabit internet and 5G networks and its negligible on dial up and ever decreasing hosting prices. Literally nobody is benefitting of how "151k of extra useless information should be removed" when there are allready pages full of actual catalogue grade part numbers and MSRP's all while Wikipedia explicitly allows and help making a list like this and has a rule to only edit if it's beneficial .

In the end this senseless drama has beem going on for zero reason and it honestly should stop. Please help people who help their relatives to get phones as opposed to some admins who literally vandalize a page for zero benefit

thanks for reading

Guyfromturkey (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I think WP:IAR is probably not a good defense here. And regarding the article size: I would argue, as was advocated in some NVIDIA GPU articles, that if editors have concerns about readability and usability, then we need to investigate edits or dynamic tables to present the information in a more compact fashion. I have summarized what I think, which I think matches up fairly well with your comments here, in my comment @Robert_McClenon below. Edwin Herdman (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to IAR. I honestly ran out of defenses to say and I just wanted to cite IAR/common sense because to be frank. There isn't much to say when

The Samsung sensor list is kept even though it has same resource issues and there is no reply against that.

The admin that started it all simply says "i don't give a ... what you say i can do whatever i want" when questioned in his own talk page all while citing other stuff exist rule which he/she doesn't enforce for whatever reason.

Other one is "combat ready" or whatever the English word is in his desk or whatever to put deletion process within 15 minutes then gets sepearate list page deleted less than a week in after it's announced in talk page of Exmor all while making different statement's everytime "smaller list is more useful" (Which sounds sensible) after constantly going "Wikipedia isn't for some tech geeks to get sensor trivia go somewhere else"

The mark for deletion discussion has never before part of talk page admins simply copy pasting not catalogue link and only person saying keep not getting discussion response why he is wrong.

I honestly think it's not possible for anyone to actually improve lists (which were collapsible unlike all these car spec cpu spec pages and thus didn't obstruct page at all unlike claimed) that doesn't exist/can't be seen and even if it was tried it would get shot down because it "drowns the article" and "Wikipedia isn't your web host go host it yourself or Sony " mentality Guyfromturkey (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by JPxG

I am prepared to say the same thing here that I say, more or less, every time a discussion of this sort rolls around. Semiconductor technology is an extremely important and broad topic, upon which virtually every edifice of our modern world depends. Not only is it an important topic, it is a very broad one, with a lot of complexity and detail: chips and sensors have a lot of specific properties and attributes, and objectively true ones that can be easily verified to boot. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that tries to present the sum of human knowledge that is notable and can be verified to neutral, reliable sources. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be useful to its readers, and our content policies are written to this end.

What happened here is what happens, more or less, every time a discussion of this sort rolls around: a bunch of Wikipedia readers (in this case almost entirely electrical engineers) are pissed off because a bunch of Wikipedians have reached some consensus to remove a big table with a lot of information in it. I am not sure what benefit we would get from a formally moderated discussion, since everyone is probably just going to say the same thing they said before. jp×g 23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Exmor discussion

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Exmor)

I have no doubt that as long as this dispute remains not properly resolved, there will be further attempts to restore the list tables on the article as soon as the current protection expires.

The filing editor has listed eight other registered editors and six IP addresses. Moderated discussion is very seldom feasible with so many editors. The most effective way to resolve a content dispute with a large number of editors is an RFC. There has already been an RFC. Four months later, with continuing complaints, another RFC may be in order.

Does the filing party want another RFC, possibly publicized better, or can the filing party explain what they want? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I think a key feature of this debate is that "rough consensus" glosses over the very strong divide. I understand some of the objections from the anti-EXMOR list users, but I do not think they were well-explained to the infrequent editors active before the edit war, or readers who were invested in preserving the list. That was an avoidable mistake in my view. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by filing party

Hello guys.

I admit that I'm a bit unfamiliar with how exactly DR/N and its processes work, that this is the first thread I've created here, and that most of all, I didn't make my intentions very clear (and were a bit different than what I wrote) in the "How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?" statement.

Here's the exact reason I've created this thread, and the intended goal for it:

So between the litany of complaints from dozens of editors regarding the removal, as well as the wall of text of messages from editors who are on the side of "there should be no list" and "there should only be a small list", it was difficult for me to analyse and understand what exactly the consensus was, especially considering that the reverts have still continued recently in May 2023, shortly after the expiration of the third page protection.

On top of that, the reverts in the history of the Exmor article demonstrated that quite a number of the editors who want the product list back, wanted the full original list restored, rather than some small portion of it containing just notable / referencable products only.

The intended outcome for this DR/N thread was to see what exactly to make of these opposing points that have numerous supporters on all sides of the argument, before proceeding to add a list to the article again. There were so many pieces of the puzzle to put together I just didn't know what the consensus really was.

I hope that makes sense now. I am happy to come and clarify further statements if needed.

I had also forgotten that you can create another RfC on the same topic if needed, that it's not really limited to one...

To answer this question:

? That appears to mean: "The editors who want the table will be persistent, and don't want to accept the status quo." What is really meant?

What I meant by it, is that it seemed to me that the dispute was not over, considering that the reverts on the article and further objections to the content removal on the talk page have both continued after the December 2022 RfC and several editors supporting the removal having expressed why so. Once again, with the scale of the dispute being so explosively vast, I could not determine if it was over.

Thanks everyone! And apologies for any time wasted and confusion created. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to apologize for time wasted - Wikipedia is meant to be collaborative. Thank you for tagging me in. I think your comments reflect that the process of debating and seeking consensus was unnecessarily flawed and even combative at times. I agree with you that this really could have some profound consequences for technology pages, if the rationale used against the EXMOR list really holds generally. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Exmor)

Please read the usual rules. I am not opening a case, and do not plan to open a case, but it would be a good idea for at least the filing party to read the rules. The rules include being concise, and being specific.

The filing party has submitted a long statement. It doesn't answer either the question that they said they were addressing, or the question that I asked. The question that they said they were addressed is why they requested dispute resolution. I know that some editors are not satisfied with the deletion of the table. That sometimes happens. It is not always possible to satisfy every editor, and it isn't always useful to keep trying to resolve a dispute when a majority of the community have expressed a rough consensus. What is more immediately important is that the filing party hasn't answered my question.

Does the filing party want another RFC, possibly publicized better? If so, we will have another RFC. Otherwise, we will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I've not been party to the dispute or the RFC except in a tangential way, but I want to share my observations. I think this has profound potential consequences for bias and the Wikipedia community beyond the EXMOR article that should be discussed in some forum - perhaps the village pump would be an appropriate venue.

First statements by editors (Exmor)

Second statement by volunteer (Exmor)

User:Edwin Herdman – Maybe you didn't read the ground rules when you jumped in to this discussion. You are welcome to take part, and I have added you to the list of editors, but you are expected to follow the rules. When I say "Be civil and concise", I don't mean "Be civil", and I don't mean "Be civil or be concise". I don't mean to post 1800 words. When I say not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, that means not to reply to every post. I have read your lengthy statements once, and, because of their length, I am not sure what you are saying. DRN is not a forum to discuss policy, and, about this article, we will not be having moderated discussion, because there already has been an RFC. Either there can be another RFC, or the most recent RFC will stand as the rough consensus of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

There have been suggestions that a shorter list or table might be a good idea. We can consider a shorter table as one of the options if there is another RFC. I have asked one question that has not been answered, which is whether there should be another RFC. If there are any other issues, they can be stated concisely now. Any long comments will be collapsed, and some of the overly long comments that have already been made will be collapsed.

Should there be another RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I take your point, Robert. I don't know and I'm looking for guidance on whether another RFC would actually be the appropriate venue to tackle this. As I suggested, I think there are some issues outside the scope of just restoring the list or not. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Exmor)

Third statement by volunteer (Exmor)

The purpose of DRN is to resolve content disputes that have not been resolved by normal discussion. There does not appear to have been any discussion of changes to the article except for continuing controversy about whether or not to have the table. If there are issues about article content outside the scope of restoring the table, they should be discussed at the article talk page, Talk:Exmor. If discussion reaches an impasse, a request can be made for moderated discussion at DRN. If there are issues about policy, they can be discussed at Village pump or another policy forum. If there are issues about editor conduct, they can be addressed at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

If there are any questions, I will try to answer them.

Should there be another RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Exmor)

I have now understood that DR/N isn't the most appropriate option to resolve this content dispute, in its current state.

I am currently not interested in starting another RfC. If I decide that there shall be another RfC, I'll start it myself later anyway.

As for what I exactly wanted to be done, I intended for a product list to be created on the article again – either a list with notable products only, or restoring the original list with all the sensors in it. Whether it's the former or the latter that should be done, would be based on the general consensus formed from collecting the various opposing points and their arguments here on this thread, together. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Andre

• No, I will not participate with a tendentious text walling IP who is making wild accusations of antisemitism and neonazism with no basis. Andre🚐 12:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Genetic Studies On Jews discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of dispute by GuardianH

Northeastern University discussion

• Volunteer Note - First, the filing party has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Second, if the filing editor is asking for an unbiased opinion, a Third Opinion might be a less time-consuming process (but DRN is still available with proper notice). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I had notified the user of this on the Northeastern talk page, but I've now additionally notified them on this talk page. I hope we can still proceed with this DRN, thank you. Relativebalance (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The other editor has not responded 48 hours after being notified, but is editing. Participation in DRN is voluntary. This case will be left open for maybe another day before being closed due to lack of response. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.