Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk | contribs) at 18:58, 12 September 2025 (→First statements by editors (Manchester United): comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.
    Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)
    Shortcuts

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

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

    If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

    • This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
    • We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
    • The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
    • Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
    • Do not enter text that has been generated by a large language model or other artificial intelligence. All statements in dispute resolution must be in your own words.
    • Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
    • Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
    If you need help:

    If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

    • This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
    • For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

    We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

    Volunteers should remember:
    • Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
    • Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
    • Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
    Open/close quick reference
    • To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
    • To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
    Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
    Title Status User Time User Time User Time
    2025 Moldovan parliamentary election In Progress Basque mapping (t) 24 days, 14 hours Robert McClenon (t) 19 hours Number 57 (t) 3 hours
    David and_Stephen_Flynn New Calmsea123456 (t) 18 days, 13 hours Robert McClenon (t) 19 hours Robert McClenon (t) 19 hours
    Ricky Hatton In Progress Rusted AutoParts (t) 12 days, 15 hours Robert McClenon (t) 19 hours Dotsdomain (t) 10 hours
    Vladimir Lenin New Thedarkknightli (t) 11 days, Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 14 hours Thedarkknightli (t) 3 days, 21 hours
    Political status_of_Taiwan New JaredMcKenzie (t) 8 days, 6 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 4 hours JaredMcKenzie (t) 3 days, 22 hours
    Gang stalking Closed Amranu (t) 2 days, 5 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 19 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 19 hours
    N1 (rocket) New NoTimeForUs (t) 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 19 hours NoTimeForUs (t) 6 hours

    If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.


    Current disputes

    Tourism in_Turkey

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    Closed discussion
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    The issue is that reliably sourced content about risks and dangers of tourism in Turkey (terrorism, unrest, natural disasters, crime, health/safety) has been repeatedly removed. These statements are cited to multiple government travel advisories and other reliable sources, and are directly relevant per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV.

    Despite this, every attempt to restore the material has been reverted, often with claims of “anti-Turkey propaganda” rather than policy-based reasoning. The dispute is whether this content, which I believe is meaningful, relevant, and verifiable, should remain in the article or continue to be excluded.

    It seems that it is not just me and other users who have tried to address that issue has been blocked in the past.

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tourism_in_Turkey#Removal_of_any_related_safety_or_risk_issues

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    The best way forward is to evaluate the disputed section against core content policies—WP:RS, WP:V, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV,rather than personal views. A neutral third party could help by reviewing the government advisories and other cited sources to determine whether the risks and dangers section is presented proportionally and appropriately. If needed, we could also work together on wording that reflects the sources faithfully while avoiding undue weight or editorial bias, in line with rules.

    Summary of dispute by Woxic1589

    Hi, I have already replied to the user above and made my point, with clear arguments, explanations, at the Talk:Tourism in Turkey. Adding vague, irrelevant information like that with barely any context has no place at any tourism page of any country (so not just that of Turkey). Domestic crime, natural disasters and ‘’civil unrest’’, how is that only relevant to Turkey’s tourism sector? And when I asked him for examples, he came up with countries such as Syria, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan etc. Just because of ‘’geopolitical reasons’’ (again, how is that relevant to Turkey’s tourism?). Just because the content you add has ‘’sources’’, doesn’t mean you can add anything you want to. Like do I add the fact that the UK and France have multiple crime incidents, on its tourism page, because its sourced? No, no one does. As last example he mentioned the Tourism in Israel article, but no such thing is mentioned there either, because its not relevant to their tourism industry. He’s free to reply to my response on the talk page. (He has not done so for 3 days now) Woxic1589 (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Tourism in_Turkey discussion

    First statement by possible moderator (Tourism in Turkey)

    Hello, after reading the DR request and the linked talk page discussion, I am willing to assist you both reach a resolution to this dispute about if and how safety concerns should be included on the Tourism in Turkey article.

    Consistent with best practices, I've notified User:Woxic1589 of this DR request, and will refrain from providing substantive comments until they've had a reasonable opportunity to provide an opening statement. Jcgaylor (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Second statement by possible moderator (Tourism in Turkey)

    Now that we have an opening statement from each of the involved parties, I'd like to establish a shared understanding of the dispute and the relevant policies/guidelines (P&Gs). Once we all agree on those, then we can work to apply the P&Gs to this situation, and hopefully reach a consensus.

    Ground Rules

    First, I ask that you both agree to abide by DRN Rule A. This will keep our discussion fruitful and give you both a greater chance of resolving this dispute.
    Pay particular attention to Rule #4 (comment on content, not contributors) and Rule #8 (do not discuss this dispute on the article's talk page).

    Statement of the Dispute:

    • Primary Dispute: Whether information on the safety of and risks to tourists is relevant and worthy of inclusion on an article discussing tourism in Turkey.
    • Secondary Dispute: Whether the inclusion of such information aligns with the scope of similar articles on tourism in other countries.

    Does anyone disagree that this as a fair summary of this dispute?

    Statement of Relevant Policies & Guidelines: As I see it, these are the R&Gs that are relevant to this dispute, and whose application may lead to a consensus solution:

    I do not think the R&Gs on verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sources (WP:RS) are applicable, because the dispute centers not on the efficacy of the claims made by the cited sources, but the relevance of their inclusion in the article. User:Woxic1589 has stated that User:Apsa 54's edits were sourced.

    Does anyone disagree that these P&Gs should guide the discussion? Please keep your responses focused on the statement of the dispute and the P&Gs, not the substance of your disputes or making more arguments for your position: We'll get to those next. Jcgaylor (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this dispute still active? Jcgaylor (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Socotra Airport

    – New discussion.

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    There are charter flights between Socotra Airport and Abu Dhabi that seem to be unauthorised and the text reflects that. But an editor wants to add a note to the destinations table declaring those flights illegal, based on sources that do not declare it illegal and a source involved in WP:MEMO. In my opinion, the note is superfluous (due to the prior text in the article) and POV (due to the quality of the sources given and the stance of the expressed opinion). The contested edit is this one.

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

    By discussion on Talk:Socotra Airport and - unfortunately - on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:The Banner

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Investigate if the added note is neutral and necessary.

    Summary of dispute by Abo Yemen

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

    I'm going to keep this very brief since the other participants here have already provided a good enough summary: Our current dispute is about whether to include the note in the destinations table or not. The UAE has been operating flights to Socotra via Air Arabia following the Southern Transitional Council takeover of Socotra. We have sources saying reporting on the issue, saying that the Yemeni government did not authorize those flights and are illegal. The Banner thinks that note violates WP:NPOV and had called me a POV-pusher for wanting to keep that note. IMO that note is very much relevant and should be there since there are no sources that oppose the illegal designation of the flight 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by Mitchp10

    First, I am a new editor so I apologize for any errors I make or have made during this process. Also, I am still learning how to format and I’m currently on mobile.

    My main issue was with the wording of the article as I read it | in this revision.

    This section of “History” I felt was both not in line with neutral POV and also poorly sourced:

    “Flights have been operated illegally out of the airport to transfer Israeli tourists to the island following the occupation of the airport by the United Arab Emirates.”

    As I explained in Talk: Socotra Airport, I felt that there was insufficient sources for this claim, and also while I understand that this is a hot geopolitical topic, I don’t see the reasoning behind specifically calling out Israeli tourists in this wiki article especially not with a shaky source like it had.

    I have not really been following the back and forth in the last week, but I think the wording of the article as it stands is mostly fine. I don’t think it’s necessary to have a note that the flight is operating illegally in the table, but I think a mention of it is probably good. Can I propose the word “unauthorized” instead of “illegal”? Clearly, someone thinks these flights are legal or otherwise they wouldn’t be running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchp10 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also just like to make clear that while i made the original edit and talk page post, I’ve pretty much entirely stayed out of this discussion. Mitchp10 (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

    Summary of dispute by Paprikaiser

    I've already replied in the original thread, so I'll try not to be too repetitive. I don't follow the claim of POV pushing based on "the quality of the sources". The sources cited are not making their own assessment but quoting government officials. As long as those statements are properly attributed, they seem worthy of inclusion. Excluding this content altogether does come across as POV pushing, especially since one of the sources was previously dismissed as "pro-Palestinian" even though it was government figures making the claim that the flights were illegal. All of the sources, not just MEMO, are simply reporting on their statements; they are not making an editorial judgment of their own. This can be resolved by avoiding wiki voice and attributing the illegality claim to the government, or by stating that the flights were unauthorized by the government. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by Grimforge

    I am inserting myself in this dispute resolution because I have also reverted the addition of the "illegal" note to the article. The supposed "illegal" branding of the flights has only been endorsed by news outlets critical of both the UAE and Israel. There are no neutral WP:RS calling it illegal and the official that has declared it "illegal" is an unnamed source from Yemen's presidential leadership council controlled information ministry which is exactly what the text of the article states (note that Yemen is in a civil war with multiple factions, each of who consider themselves as the "rightful government" and the other as "illegal"). The rest of media coverage of it are all sympathetic to either the Houthi or the PLC factions in Yemen who unsurprisingly do not control Socotra as it falls under another faction due to a civil war in Yemen, the southern transitional council. Also to note that there are a lot of propaganda about how Israeli tourists and Israel intelligence supposedly have built a base in Socotra all published by non-neutral, secretarian, and biased media outlets which is part of the broader trend of propaganda in the region. This is not verified by neutral non-sectarian sources. It is not in the interest of the wiki project to push sectarian view points in wikivoice and to stick to WP:NPOV, therefore I do not support inclusion of supposed "illegality" until there is a neutral court of law that determines this. Grimforge (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Socotra Airport 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 (Socotra Airport)

    I am ready to act as the moderator if moderated discussion is requested. Please read DRN Rule A. I have added a user to the list of editors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor disagrees about, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Zeroth statements by editors (Socotra Airport)

    First statement by moderator (Socotra Airport)

    The disagreement appears to be only about a note that restates what is already stated in the body of the article. Is that correct? If so, I would like each editor to make a concise statement as to why they think that the encyclopedia will be better with or without the Note, respectively. If the editors cannot agree on whether to include or exclude the Note, we will have to resolve the dispute by a Request for Comments. Do we really want to spend significant volunteer time on whether to include or exclude a Note that is already in the text of the article?

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    First statements by editors (Socotra Airport)

    • Please see my summary & opinion above. I'm only but a novice but I think WP:CONACHIEVE has been achieved with at least 3 users dissenting & reverting the inclusion of an unnecessary "illegal" note to an airport destination table? If not, I guess we'll need more volunteer's opinions. Grimforge (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's correct. Feel free to start one if you wish. As for Grim's comment above, consensus is not achieved by edit warring. Plus 2 editors arguing for its inclusion to 3 arguing otherwise just means that there is no consensus 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I am missing something, but from the article history it seems multiple users (Mitchp10, The Banner, Johnj1995, and at least 2 IP users, Xxk9bomber, What-ifpaypay, and myself) have all removed the "illegal" part since at least last year and were reverted in part by you. Not sure who else agrees with adding the note but maybe opening an Rfc would be the best. Grimforge (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Second statement by moderator (Socotra Airport)

    When I said to read DRN Rule A, I meant to read it and follow it, not just to read it and say that you had read it. It says not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. It also says to comment on content, not contributors. Do some of us really want an RFC on the addition of a Note that restates what is already in the text of the article? Please provide a concise statement as to why the inclusion or the exclusion of the Note will improve the encyclopedia.

    Are there any other questions, or should I fail this discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Second statements by editors (Socotra Airport)

    • Sorry, but that AN/I discussion pointed to Dispute Resolution as a way to solve this issue, so I see them as related. And in fact a continuation. But my position is to solve the content issue. The Banner talk 19:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why the only options being discussed are either keeping the note as it was or removing it entirely. Abo Yemen has already suggested an alternative phrasing. We can simply note that the flights were unauthorized by both the Houthi and the internationally recognized Yemeni government, without labeling them as illegal in wiki voice. Including that doesn't harm the article; it's just a short explanatory note, and that's exactly what notes are for. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The note is disputed and is likely to invite future edit warring as evident in the article history. It's context is already included in details in the text where disputed content should be. Adding notes in wiki voice with sectarian statements does not improve the neutrality of wikipedia and invites future disputes. Grimforge (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Third statement by moderator (Socotra Airport)

    Paprikaiser has proposed a compromise note. Do the editors agree to the compromise?

    The Banner wrote: Sorry, but that AN/I discussion pointed to Dispute Resolution as a way to solve this issue, so I see them as related. And in fact a continuation. But my position is to solve the content issue. I am not sure what is being said to be related to what. We are here to solve the content issue, and the ANI discussion was closed as a content dispute. So please focus on the content issue about whether to include a note, and do not refer to closed ANI discussions.

    I would like each editor to state whether they agree to the compromise, and, if not, why their preferred option will improve the encyclopedia.

    Are there any other questions ? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Third statements by editors (Socotra Airport)

    @Robert McClenon I have no issues with Paprikaiser's compromise 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inclined to disagree as inessential and contentious, already covered in text, and likely to invite future edit warring. If consensus determines its inclusion, then by WP:OR it should state what the source states as in the text which is described as unauthorized by the Houthi government and

      a source in the Information, Tourism and Culture Ministry in Aden

      While Houthi leadership has clearly stated it's an unauthorized flight, there's more ambiguity from the Int. recognized govt of Yemen unless other sources remove this ambiguity. Grimforge (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fourth statement by moderator (Socotra Airport)

    One of the editors who was in this discussion has been blocked for one month. I will ask the remaining editors (and any editors who are watching and want to participate) which of the options they will be satisfied with. There are three options, where option A is the original note, option B is the compromise note, and option C is no note. I would like each editor to state whether they will be satisfied with option A (the original note), whether they will be satisfied with option B (the compromise note), and whether they will be satisfied with option C (no note).

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fourth statements by editors (Socotra Airport)

    Fifth statement by moderator (Socotra Airport)

    I guess I didn't ask mt question clearly. I mean to ask each of you not only what your first choice was, but what other choices you would be willing to agree to. However, I don't think I need to ask that. I see three first choices for Option B. So my question is whether the fourth editor is willing to accept Option B. If so, we will close this dispute as resolved by a compromise, which is the best possible outcome of DRN (although not the most common).

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fifth statements by editors (Socotra Airport)

    • Yes, in my comment I mentioned if other deem it necessary (which is what seems to be in this case) then I am willing to accept what the majority agree to even if I don't really agree with it, and suggest an expanded explanation as it is written in text to minimize any future edit warring. You can proceed to close this. Thank you for your work. Grimforge (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season

    – New discussion.

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    There is a dispute on 2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season on whether to use a wikitable to display match results ( like here) or using {{Football box collapsible}} to do this (like here). For reference most other football season articles use the template; it is only Manchester United seasons which uses the wikitable (as far as I know). After the creation of that article there was a silent consensus to use the template, which was implemented a few months later. However, this was back-and-forth reverted by multiple users (no violation of 3RR, nor any action that I would consider edit warring). After that we were unable to reach a policy-based consensus on the talk page, which has at least a few "I just don't like it" arguments. I believe that the template should be used because we should provide a summary of the matches from an NPOV (as opposed to the wikitable, which does not include the opposition scorers) and that it includes some useful supplementary information, such as the venue and kick-off time.

    Note: I have not included KyleRGiggs and Steveo1980 as an involved users as they did not participate beyond the initial silent consensus in June. This is also my first time using DRN, so sorry if I didn't use it correctly.

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

    Talk:2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season#Matches summary User talk:Alpha Beta Delta Lambda#2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    By providing an (policy/guideline-based) independent opinion on this matter.

    Summary of dispute by PeeJay

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

    We have a manual of style for football club season articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. Both the table format and the {{footballbox collapsible}} format are acceptable, but OP has not presented sufficient grounds for this article or any other to change format. I have plenty of arguments against {{footballbox collapsible}}, but that's ground that's been well trod over my time editing Wikipedia (see here). If anyone wants to hear them again, please ping me. – PeeJay 18:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by Erkatta11

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

    Summary of dispute by Ikhouvanjou14

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

    Talk:2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season 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 (Manchester United)

    I am willing to try to act as a mediator. Please read DRN Rule A. If I understand correctly, the issue is whether to use a wikitable to display the results or a template. Are there any other issues? I am asking each editor to state whether they would prefer the wikitable or the template.

    I will ask more questions after I read the answers. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I prefer the table format, but I am the editor responsible for having created most of the Manchester United season articles using that format, which might mean I'm a little biased. Nevertheless, I still think the table format is better than the template format. Happy to elaborate if you need. – PeeJay 13:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Zeroth statements by editors (Manchester United)

    Your understanding is correct; this is the only issue. I prefer the {{footballbox collapsible}} template, as it is easier to use for newcomers and gives more information (in addition to opposition scorers). Also I don't think many of the concerns of the template applies, and I'm willing to give more deatils if required. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    First statement by moderator (Manchester United)

    It appears that the only question is whether to use the football box template or a wikitable to display the season results. Either method is permitted. Consistency with related articles is a consideration, although not the only consideration. It appears that in 2024-25 and 2023-24, a table was used. Is that correct? Is it correct that the box template provides more information than the table? Providing more information is a consideration, although not the only consideration. I would like each editor to state, in one paragraph, which format they prefer and why. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    First statements by editors (Manchester United)

    It appears that most Manchester United season articles are written with the table format, while most' other season articles of other clubs (e.g. 2024–25 seasons of Liverpool, Fulham or Barcelona) are using the box template. I still agree with the box template format, because of consistency with other clubs and I consider the template box to provide more than the table (This is technically part of the dispute, since other editors disagree what is "necessary", but I consider the venue/location of the match to be important.). Another reason is that by not including oppositon scorers (which the table format does not, and space is a limiting factor to include that in the table), we would have a fan point of view rather than a neutral one. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Attack on Fort St. Philip (1815)

    – New discussion.

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    For the time period July 27 through September 2, the result field of the infobox was changed seven times by LucyGermanDog, to delete “inconclusive” and to insert “American victory”. The initial justification was that was it was stated on a website. (The website states that the victory occurred on January 12. Other sources disagree with the concluding date.) https://www.battlefields.org/learn/war-1812/battles/fort-st-philip?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    The subsequent argument was that there are universal rules for victories of battles, and the Royal Navy has fallen foul of these rules.

    The latest rationale, as of September 7, is that the officer commanding the garrison wrote a letter to his commanding officer, to tell him that he was victorious.

    When these bold edits were performed, there was no discussion occurring. The first discourse started on September 2 at 09:22 US PDT (Daylight Saving) / 12:22 US EDT (Daylight Saving)/ 16:22 UK GMT.

    The purpose of the edits has been to amend the outcome of the "battle" in the infobox. The underlying content in the core of the body of the article has been unchanged. I am of the opinion that the c̶u̶r̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ outcome "inconclusive" conforms with WP:NPOV, avoids a WP:NATIONALIST stance, and that the laws of physics (around physical impossibility of big ships in shallow riverbeds) play a big part in determining the outcome of this riverine engagement.

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

    Please see older content Talk:Attack on Fort St. Philip (1815)#Outcome of the siege - inconclusive, or a victory User talk:LucyGermanDog

    Please see most recent content Talk:Attack on Fort St. Philip (1815)#a victory, or an inconclusive result/outcome

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Previously, there were bold edits of the outcome. They were reverted by various editors, as the justification for the change did not stand up to verification. No discussion took place in this time period. The strong desire for "American victory" to be recorded in this article resulted in an edit war.

    The best way forward is to evaluate the dispute against core content policies—WP:RS, WP:V, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV,rather than personal views. A neutral third party could help by reviewing


    Summary of dispute by LucyGermanDog

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

    Attack on Fort St. Philip (1815) discussion

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

    The Bengal Files

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    Closed discussion
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Hi,
    Please add ADWikiax also as a user involved in the discussion
    Also some typo in central Knights user. Correct link for user is this: User talk:Centralknights
    Thanks for the consideration.
    Regards
    Computeracct Computeracct (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    It says in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bengal_Files

    Lines with contentions:

    1.The Bengal Files[a] is a 2025 Indian Hindi-language political drama propaganda film[8][9] 2. and falsely claiming that these chapters of history were deliberately suppressed or ignored. 3. alongside significant criticism over its distortion of history.

    [8][9] citations here are film review articles for supposedly showing it is a propaganda film. No evidence/citation provided for showing these were false claims No evidence/citation provided for showing it distorts history.

    These are stated as facts, without any proper evidence to back it up.

    This violates WP: NPOV, WP: RS, WP: Balance

    Talk page Topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Bengal_Files#On_Historical_Context_and_Sources

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

    Discussion Talk page Topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Bengal_Files#On_Historical_Context_and_Sources

    It has been pointed out in the talk page by me and others that 1. movie review articles do not constitute evidence. 2. provide actual news articles (not opinions) or encyclopedic sources to prove any of those. 3. Requirements as per WP:RS, WP: NPOV, WP: Balance 4. Links to historical events given 5. movie reviews can be used for saying "some critics said..", but not as truth

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    1. Remove the words "propaganda film". Request them to show proper evidence, not film reviews. 2. Remove the word falsely. No evidence/citations given for that. Request them to show proper evidence.

    3. No citations given for this last one either. So plea remove "alongside significant criticism over its distortion of history." and ask them to show proper evidence or have it as "some critics have said it shows the truth, some critics have said it distorts history" or something along those lines.

    Summary of dispute by EarthDude

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

    Summary of dispute by ZDRX

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

    Summary of dispute by Ratnahastin

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

    Summary of dispute by Orientls

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

    Summary of dispute by Goswami21

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

    Summary of dispute by RIP B1058

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

    Summary of dispute by TricanaQ

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

    The Bengal Files discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    • Computeracct Are you acting as a proxy for ADWikiax(who is AE-blocked and could not comment here even if they weren't blocked)? You haven't proposed a resolution to this dispute, you've proposed what you want to happen as a result. Dispute resolution is about achieving consensus, which includes those with differing viewpoints. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am here on my own representing myself, not on behalf of anyone else. Computeracct (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet you put a special note on here to include ADWikiax. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked to correct Central Knights also in the same comment.
    And I had forgotten to add ADWikax. Computeracct (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolution is to request those making those claims to provide credible evidence from proper sources, not film reviews (already mentioned)
    Asking them to satisfy WP: RS, WP: NPOV, WP: Balance. (already mentioned)
    and get consensus after posting those sources - if they do (onus is on those making the allegations as per WP: Balance) Computeracct (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article already states that sources say it is a propaganda film- you are the one challenging that, you are the one that needs to achieve a consensus. You may be right to do so, I have no idea, I don't know who's right, I'm not taking a side. But it's your challenge. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources are film reviews. that is not evidence for stating something as a fact/as the truth
    Per WP:RSOPINION, reviews can be cited but their opinions must be clearly attributed, not presented as the truth.
    It can say --- "some critics said ......
    but reviews cannot be used as evidence for stating something as a fact/as the truth Computeracct (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing on Wikipedia is stated to be the truth. See WP:TRUTH. In any event, you would need to establish that views on this are truly mixed(maybe they are, I don't know). WP:FALSEBALANCE. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please make that as verifiable then. movie reviews should not be used for showing something as verifiable.
    For opinions ->
    I had provided multiple movie reviews from reliable/WP: ICTF approved sources in which the critics stated the film was showing the truth, saying it refrains from evoking hate etc. So yes,
    I just provided two movie reviews from WP: ICTF sources which directly contradict "and falsely claiming that these chapters of history were deliberately suppressed or ignored." in the talk page. (rarely addressed, untold story ....)
    so yes, I have provided evidence to show views on this are truly mixed in the talk page - Talk:The Bengal Files#On Historical Context and Sources
    it is not WP:FALSEBALANCE Computeracct (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to suggest that it was, I'm simply saying that we can't create balance where sources do not, one way or the other. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    California genocide

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    Closed discussion
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    A book review offered a criticism of one of the historians on which the page is based. The reference to the review, and its quotations, has been deleted. The edit also uses the term "genocide theory." The other editors regard this as a universally accepted, unchallengeable fact endorsed by the State of California, and not a theory. There are no reliable sources for such a claim.

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

    Talk:California genocide#Is this a Wikipedia sacred cow?Talk:California genocide#Restoring section on criticism of the Genocide Theory

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Restore the section that has been removed. It can be found in the revision of 19:57, 31 August 2025 Julian in LA. A clarification was added in the revision of 00:51, 3 September 2025.

    Summary of dispute by Gb321

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

    Summary of dispute by Moxy

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

    Summary of dispute by Cristiano Tomás

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

    Summary of dispute by Asilah1981

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

    Summary of dispute by Xenophrenic

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

    California genocide discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ethnic groups in Afghanistan

    – New discussion.

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    This is primarily a disagreement over what data sources are reliable for a table containing past and present percentages of ethnic groups in Afghanistan. There are also differences over article prose. I am submitting this request on behalf of Badakhshan ziba, and am a party in the dispute.

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

    Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan#Vandalism Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan#Request_to_remove_unreliable_Sources_in_the_"Ethnic_Groups_in_Afghanistan"_Article Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan#Unreliable_sources,_part_3 User_talk:Badakhshan_ziba#Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan User_talk:SdHb#Do_not_revert User_talk:Asilvering#Another_big_revert_in_Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Helping to structure and mediate the debate. Clarifying policies related to source reliability. Advising how to handle competing/contradicting sources and giving proper weight to opposing opinions in same.

    Summary of dispute by Badakhshan ziba

    hello please read this link I think explained the problem well.

    thank you ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan#Request_for_correction_and_revision_in_the_ethnic_composition_table_and_activate_dispute_resolution_mechanisms) Badakhshan ziba (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by SdHb

    The dispute over the article revolves around the basic question of how reliable and representable the ethnic composition of Afghanistan really is and which sources are suitable to describe it.

    My intention from the beginning has been to shape the article in a way that reflects what is widely acknowledged in academic research that ethnicity in Afghanistan is politicized, contested and much more fluid than simplistic "ethnic groups" suggest. Instead of presenting demographic percentages as if they were objective facts, my aim was to highlight that all such numbers are based on estimates, that no census on ethnicity exists and that ethnic affiliation is often overshadowed by regional, religious, linguistic and other identities. With my edits I tried to bring the article in line with this consensus.

    The editor Badakhshan ziba has repeatedly opposed this approach by misinterpreting policy and undermining reliable sourcing. Their arguments follow a pattern of misusing policies such as WP:RS, WP:V or WP:RECENTISM, treating them as prohibitions when they are not, and applying them inconsistently depending on whether the outcome fits their position. At the same time they attempt to promote material that is methodologically unsound, such as election data, while dismissing established academic references. What's more is that much of the discussion is consumed by repetitively restating these claims even after they have been addressed, which obstructs progress and prevents consensus.

    This editing style and all of the big reverts without consensus has made collaboration extremely difficult and was rather WP:DISRUPTIVE, something both the users Xan747 (who started as a 3O volunteer in the discussion but got much more engaged in the content of the article later) and asilvering have noticed. Rather than working toward balance, the effect at the end is to diminish nuanced scholarship in favor of a simplified, politicized narrative. My point is that sources need to be judged consistently, that unreliable or politicized material shouldn't be treated as demographic evidence and that the article represent the complexity of Afghan identity as described by credible experts (as I have tried in my draft in which Xan747 and I found consensus pretty fase).

    Summary of dispute by Xan747

    The original dispute is between Badakhshan ziba and SdHb. My involvement began as a 3O volunteer in this thread, where I adopted a mediator approach rather than giving opinions on sources or content. The process I suggested was for each editor to arrive at a mutually acceptable list of sources, and to draft their own version of the article in user space using only sources from that list. Badakhshan ziba did not participate in that process for about five days, saying they had taken ill.

    In the meantime, SdHb did draft their own candidate version, with input from me that I felt were responsive to Badakhshan's concerns, as well as many of my own opinions as I became more familiar with the topic. By the time Badakhshan was able to engage, their main input was to list their preferred sources, and then argue why SdHb's sources should not be used. I felt that Badakhshan's arguments misinterpreted the sourcing policies they cited, and finding no obvious problems with SdHb's sourcing or content based on them, told Badakhshan that SdHb and I had formed a consensus to use SdHb's preferred content, which SdHb then implemented.

    Badakhshan reverted the article to their preferred state soon after, where it remained until asilvering restored SdHb's preferred version a few days after that, and made numerous edits with which both SdHb and myself feel have improved the article. Badakhshan has not edited the article since then.

    Although I have become more familiar with this topic, both Badakhshan and SdHb exhibit knowledge of far greater depth, and I will leave them to argue those points. My opinions are more based on Badakhshan's interpretations of policy, which I find lacking, and so any further comments I make in this dispute most likely have that focus. Xan747 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As I was writing, I became aware that Badakhshan again removed content from the article against consensus, explaining why in article talk. Xan747 (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I have entirely removed the data table from the article as that is main point of contention and started a new "fresh-start" thread at Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan#Data_table_discussion with the hope that we can add back "common ground" content before moving on to disputed stuff. -- Xan747 (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by asilvering

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

    I initially came to this administratively, via an edit-warring report, and was really pleased by how well Xan747's moderation of the discussion went after that. I was then disappointed to see Badakhshan's wholesale revert at the end of that process. Hoping to avoid having to set any blocks, I tried to restart the talk page conversation again, but, as you can see, that was unsuccessful. I haven't gotten very far into the merits of the dispute yet; my first step was to restore the more recent, expanded version, and do a sweep for obviously unreliable sources. My suspicion is that Badakhshan is at least partly correct on the merits, despite the fact that their behaviour has been sub-optimal and much of their reasoning does not accurately follow various policies and guidelines. I am perplexed by the most recent revert, but, again, I have not yet gotten very far into the meat of the dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethnic groups in Afghanistan discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    @Xan747 I am still not familiar with some of the Wikipedia rules. I did not delete any content. just moved it to another location on the article.I am not sure if I am not allowed by Wikipedia rules to move content to another location on the article?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan&diff=prev&oldid=1310542667 Badakhshan ziba (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering I apologize. I am still not familiar with some of the Wikipedia rules. I mistakenly assumed that after I had proven with many reasons that this article had numerous structural errors and after the talk page was closed, [1]
    I thought I could edit the old version. So, I mistakenly assumed I had the right to replace the older version with a more correct one. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Badakhshan ziba, I have moved your above two comments down here from each editor's dispute summaries. Per instructions above, we should also limit conversation here and continue discussion on the article talk page. Xan747 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Badakhshan ziba, when your changes are objected to by other editors, you're expected to discuss them. A long discussion was had, and it resulted in the expanded version that you then unilaterally reverted. What we're all trying to tell you is that you shouldn't be making reverts like that against consensus, and that we should try to build a version of the article that everyone agrees on, or at least agrees to live with. Right now, the other two editors in the discussion like the longer version, so that is the version that should stay while we continue to work on it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Badakhshan ziba. Yes, editors are allowed to make changes, including moving content around in an article. What is frowned upon is unilaterally making edits against the consensus of other editors. The proper process is to gain consensus on the talk page for disputed edits. Xan747 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ethnic groups in Afghanistan)

    I am ready to act as a mediator in this dispute if a new mediator is being requested. It appears that two editors have tried to mediate. If either of them wants to resume mediation, I am willing to let them handle the dispute. I have no special familiarity with or knowledge about the subject matter, and no previous involvement with this dispute. Editors who are requesting that I conduct moderated discussion (mediation) should read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. If you take part in discussion, you are agreeing that you are aware that Afghanistan is a contentious topic. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. You have already been reminded about those rules, but it is probably a good idea to remind you again.

    Are the issues about the reliability of sources, about article content, or both? If there are issues about the reliability of sources, please identify the sources and where they are used, and we will ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the reliability of the sources. If there are issues about article content, other than reflecting issues about reliability of sources, please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor disagrees with, or what changes another editor wants to make that you disagree with. Be Specific at DRN in identifying the content issues. If there are any issues that are not about sources or about article content, please state what they are.

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for being willing to volunteer. I'm still doing mediating-type stuff, but I am far from neutral now, and am more aligned with @SdHb's vision for the article, which is pretty clearly (and understandably) an issue for @Badakhshan ziba, hence why I opened this ticket on their behalf. This is a sourcing and content dispute. Even where mutually agreeable sources have been found, there are disputes over presentation. I'll read up on DRN Rule D and the relevant ArbCom rulings. Xan747 (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon hello. I request that more people come and participate in the article's discussion page and comment. The discussions are being followed by a small number of people and no matter how much I give reasons and arguments, I feel that I am not being judged fairly and am being ignored. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon Can I ask you any questions I have here? Or should I do it on the talk page? Badakhshan ziba (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement 0.1 by possible moderator (Ethnic groups in Afghanistan)

    If I don't see answers to my questions in the next two to four days, I will infer that progress is being made on the article talk page, and will wait. If I don't see any answers in three to four days, I will ask whether there is a resolution, continuing discussion, or a need for another mediator. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Zeroth statements by editors (Ethnic groups in Afghanistan)

    Robert McClenon, thanks for offering to help out. It looks like we may have been able to jumpstart the talk page discussion - maybe we can hold off on DR for now? -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Robert McClenon, I've changed my mind. I think a quick glance at the state of the talk page will suffice to explain why. -- asilvering (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon, fyi that IPA isn't a CTOP since July, it's now part of WP:CT/SA. -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    First statement by possible moderator (Ethnic groups in Afghanistan)

    I will restate my previous comments, and will try to act as a moderator.

    Editors who are requesting that I conduct moderated discussion (mediation) should read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. If you take part in discussion, you are agreeing that you are aware that Afghanistan is a contentious topic. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. You have already been reminded about those rules, but it is probably a good idea to remind you again. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator, who acts for the community, and to the community. If you have questions, ask them here, so that a lurker can see them.

    Are the issues about the reliability of sources, about article content, or both? If there are issues about the reliability of sources, please identify the sources and where they are used, and we will ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the reliability of the sources. If there are issues about article content, other than reflecting issues about reliability of sources, please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor disagrees with, or what changes another editor wants to make that you disagree with. Be Specific at DRN in identifying the content issues. If there are any issues that are not about sources or about article content, please state what they are.

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello moderator and other editors,
    Thank you for your time and effort in mediating this discussion. Due to unexpected personal matters that I need to attend to, I regret that I will not be able to actively participate in the discussion for approximately the next 1 or 1.5 days.
    It is not my intention to delay the discussion process and I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. I would like to reaffirm my full commitment to resolving this dispute constructively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies. I will respond promptly to any questions or concerns that arise as soon as I am able .
    Finally, I should say with great regret that this is the first time I have entered into such a long and extensive discussion on Wikipedia and I am not very familiar with Wikipedia's rules on these matters, so I apologize in advance if I have made any unintentional mistakes. Thank you very much, with respect.
    ((Please delete or move this text if it is in the wrong place. If it is okay, I will delete this post in the next day or two.)) Badakhshan ziba (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    First statements by editors (Afghan groups)

    It is a combined reliability/content dispute and I don't think it would be a good idea to split out to RSN. Bringing this forward from the talk page: We can't determine whether these are good sources to use for this article simply by saying that they "are WP:RS". The idea of "a reliable source" is a general shorthand we use to make these kinds of determinations easier in general across all of Wikipedia, but when we're dealing with an editorial conflict like this one, we're trying to identify the best possible sources. Accordingly, it's not necessarily helpful to say things like "this is from a reputable journal" or "this is from an expert's blog" or whatever - just because they are a reputable journal doesn't mean they're the best possible source for the information we're trying to add, for example. So while we should definitely remove sources that don't fit WP:RS at all, like the one from the sketchy journal, the others are probably better to look at in specific context. The article did have quite a few unreliable sources (I removed several) and probably still does, but the issue is more "are these RS reliable for this particular information", alongside "how should we format the table, and what ought to go in it?" -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Second statement by possible moderator (Ethnic groups in Afghanistan)

    If an editor needs a 48-hour pause before they are ready for moderated discussion, we will wait for 48 (or 72) hours.

    If you have posted something to this noticeboard and are not sure whether it was in the right place, do not remove it. Do not remove anything here. If you posted anything that was seriously out of place, such as a personal attack, I will collapse it. Do not remove anything here. If something is so inappropriate that it will burn holes in a screen, I will ask an administrator to redact it as RD3, but I have never had to do that and I don't expect that I will have to do that.

    The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am now asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It is not necessary to explain why you do or do not want a change made. We can get to that later. Please summarize the content issue, in terms of what you want to change or leave the same.

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello @Robert McClenon thank you, I think I will need the full 48-72 hours to do a full summary of what I (don’t) want to keep and what I (don’t) want to change. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Second statements by editors (Afghan groups)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=1310990873"