- 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.
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Ongoing dispute between editors over the appropriateness of certain content on the page.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
I believe that DeFacto is in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies, including WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:POVPUSH. Many of his edits add content despite a preliminary consensus against them, and he has removed other content that is important to the article as soon as a consensus starts to go against him, claiming it goes against WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. When the issue is taken to WP:F1, he joins the discussion as consensus is formed, at which point the discussion goes off-topic and no consensus is reached, which I believe may be sabotage to prevent a consensus against his edits. There have been multiple instances of all of this happening, and sadly, I can no longer assume good faith in his edits.
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Lotus E20}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Multiple attempts to come to a consensus, both on article talk page and at WP:F1. Have approached adminstrators about the issue with no real resolution (more admin input pending).
- How do you think we can help?
Can someone please take a look at the content and come to some kind of consensus as to what is appropriate?
Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Lotus E20 discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This is a mistaken attempt by the complainant to manufacture a "dispute" scenario by rolling two separate and distict disagreements into one.
- The first issue, which is still being discussed on the article talkpage and on the project talkpage, is over the weight that is appropriate for the inclusion of the widely reported background of the car's name. There is no edit-warring involved there.
- The second issue, which the complainant has so far refused to discuss on the article's talkpage - other than to imply that because the info is similarly included in other, undisclosed, articles - is over the quality, in terms of compliance with Wiki policies as summarised in my edit summaries and fully described on the article's talkpage. The complainant reverted to include the questionable content twice, with no attempt to answer the issues I raised with respect to it.
-- de Facto (talk). 08:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- You make out that this is a recent issue. It's not. I've seen the way you edit and the way you handle discussions long enough to know that whatever argument I raise, you'll just blow it off. You claim that the current version is based entirely on speculation - but your proposed edit on the talk page is speculative. Worse, it implies that the team never actually developed the system in question. The current edit clearly states that the FIA banned that piece of equipment because they felt it broke the rules. Your proposed edit insinuates that Lotus never actually used the RRH before it was banned, the extended implication being that they never broke the rules. This, paired with your insistence that more emphasis needs to be placed on the naming of the chassis and the success of the team suggests to me that you are trying to make Lotus F1 to look "better" than they actually are. Tell me, when you wrote the original article, why did you dedicate an entire subsection of it to the name of the car, but made no mention of the development a banned technology despite the ban being reported in almsot every major publication dedicated to motorsport? And then why did you argue that the subsection on the name should be included because it was reported by multiple publications, despite having just ignored that when you skipped over the RRH ban. You claimed that Funnily enough, I don't see much, or even any cover for the ride height system that you've built a huge section to cover, but if you look at the references for the section on the ride height development, you would see that they were published just one week before you made those comments. You are picking and choosing what you include, over-emphasising the inclusion of trivia, and outright ignoring well-documented material that needs to be included. If you look at the McLaren MP4-25 page, you will see a section set aside for the F-duct, which was a major innovation at the time. So, too, is the RRH - and yet you chose to ignore it completely despite a wealth of information on it from reliable sources that was published just four days before you created the article. So how am I supposed to accept the idea that anything you do is for the betterment of the article?
- You also claimed that I haven't seen this content elsewhere, but if Prisonermonkeys has added, or is aware [of], the same poor quality content elsewhere, I suggest they review it and improve it there too, rather than coming here to whinge about it, but despite your insistence that it is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR, you have made no move to alert other users to the offending content so that it can be reviewed. That should have been the first place you went to report it, and yet you didn't do it. So I have to ask, why not. Because it looks to me like you think you WP:OWN the page and that you are the only one capable of making informed decisions about it. Like I have said, I think you are sabotaging discussions before they can reach consensus against you so that you can retain "control" over the content of the page, and thus only include what you think should be mentioned, as opposed to what actually needs to go on the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Prisonermonkeys, this is a recent issue, the article in question was only created a few days ago, and I only performed the deletion that you are taking exception to yesterday, and we haven't discussed it on the article's talkpage yet.
- The introduction at the top of this noticeboard clearly states: "This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page." As this "dispute" about the ride height system content hasn't yet been discussed on the article's talkpage, and as you now seem to be offering explanations, and wild allegations and misrepresentations of my position, over some of the reasons I gave for the deletion (singular) I made, I suggest we carry on this debate at the article's talkpage, and come back here at a later date, only if it becomes appropriate and absolutely necessary. -- de Facto (talk). 10:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that this is the most appropriate place for it. I've seen enough of your behaviour to believe that discussing things on the talk page and at WP:F1 will only be an exercise in the pointless. Why do you think I have not discussed the ride height issue on the talk page? It's because I know that nothing I say there will have any effect whatsoever, and you will continue with your habit of deleting material that you feel has no place on the page, even though I've just demonstrated that you aren't really fit to make that call. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- (Comment from uninvolved editor) Hi DeFacto, Prisonermonkeys - if I can just stop you both there, I think it will be more productive for a neutral third party to take charge of proceedings now. As it says at the top of this page, "Issues should be raised in a concise, calm, and civilized manner". I can appreciate that tensions are running high here, but simply continuing the talk page discussion here isn't going to help very much. If you give me an hour or so I will have a look through the talk page and give you my opinion on what to do next. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I have read through the discussion on the talk page and at WikiProject Formula One, and it looks like there are two main issues here: first, whether we should include information about the E20's naming in the article; and second, the status of the Enstone "team" and how we should describe it. I see that there has been a great deal of discussion on the second issue on the WikiProject talk page, but less discussion of the first issue. I have also seen some confusion over what should appear in the lede section as opposed to the article body; let me take this last point first. This has already been addressed on the WikiProject talk page, but the lede section should be a summary of the article. From WP:LEDE: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." A corollary of this is that if we want to include something in the lede, it should have a lengthy mention in the article. Another corollary is that if we only have a brief mention of something in the article body, then it probably doesn't belong in the lede. So if we are to include the naming of the E20 in the lede, it has to have more than a brief mention in the article body. Now the matter of whether we should include information on the naming at all. When I looked at the WikiProject discussion, it looked like this issue was conflated with the "Enstone team" issue in many cases, so I think it would benefit from more discussion here. One important thing that we should bear in mind is that Wikipedia is comprehensive; the relevant policy, WP:WEIGHT, says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject", and further, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Some of the arguments have claimed that including information on the naming of the car would be giving that information undue weight, but I find this hard to reconcile with the fact that the naming has been discussed in multiple, reliable, non-specialist sources such as the New York Times, BBC Sport, and Reuters. We cannot exclude sources merely because they are not official FIA sources, and I cannot see any reason to believe that these particular sources aren't reliable in this case. So, now let me cover the issue of the "Enstone team". Here we have two conflicting sources of information - the official FIA statistics and the sources that DeFacto provided. First, it doesn't look like there is any conflict about the use of Enstone as a "team" on par with official constructor teams as specified by the FIA; in such cases, everyone seems in agreement that we should use the FIA's terminology for our official statistics. When we are talking about the "group of people" at Enstone, though, the sources conflict: the official statistics call this group of people different teams depending on which season we are talking about; the media sources call them the same team that just happens to have changed their name a lot of times. As I see it, these two views are both correct, depending on what you mean by "team", and again, I don't think we can exclude the media sources from the article just because they make things inconvenient. In my experience, the only way to do things here is to be verbose - to teach the controversy, as it were. So I think we will have to spell out, in the article text, that X news sources call Enstone the same team, but that the FIA classifies them as different teams, and that the E20 is named after the Enstone team in the first sense, but that we can't call Enstone a "team" in the second sense. It will be long, yes, but when we have worked out the wording I feel it will be a good compromise. Let me know what you think of my suggestions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for your thorough, dispassionate and neutral analysis. Let's hope we can now put our differences over these issues to one side, and unite and cooperate in good faith and provide comprehensive and NPOV article content. -- de Facto (talk). 14:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I personally think you're giving a Recentism spike too much credit, none of these sources are more than a year old against the age being discussed, most less than a few months. The concept of grouping "Enstone" (even refering collectively under an Enstone banner at all) results together is largely concurrent with the E20 announcement, or at the very least sprang up when legal proceedings over the team names began and media outlets were looking for a neutral tag than was neither Lotus nor Renault. But I'm a party to the dispute and have a strong opinion on the subject so my opinion can be easily dismissed. --Falcadore (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Falcadore - this "Enstone team" concept had little or no coverage before the recent fuss over the Lotus name and the naming of the E20, and coverage of the latter was solely generated by the recent quotes from the team. The sources are themselves pretty weak in my opinion, using an ambiguous term ("team") to suggest a legitimacy for an "Enstone team" which just does not exist officially. There are no official sources (or even semi-official) to support the existence of an "Enstone team" existing since 1984. There are in fact, official sources to suggest that this "team" does not exist. These two systems of defining a team cannot co-exist. Any lengthy explanation of this trivia will only serve to confuse the casual reader trying to figure out what is already a very complex situation, and undermine the official statistics. I am also party to the dispute and I have grave doubts over the ergonomics of including a large amount of trivial material, across a very large multitude of articles, favoured by one single user (who seems to think this debate is concluded) over the wishes of several others. I say a very large multitude of articles because this concept of merging together groups of teams with a perceived joint heritage will affect most of the teams on the grid, not just Lotus. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- First thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. As another involved editor, I share the same views as Bretonbanquet and Falcadore, and agree with their points. I would like to add on the issue of the E20, that while you are correct in stating WP:LEAD: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.", it is also applicable to refer to the Relative emphasis section where this sentence is also repeated: Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. This part to me covers the announcement the new naming convention, while it is indeed notable enough to include, fleshing this out to a whole section is undue weight - there is not enough to this beyond a single sentence. It is a similar situation to when McLaren changed their naming designation to the McLaren MP4/1 - a single sentence is more than enough.
- On the matter of the Enstone debate, another point I would like to bring up is that your idea Mr. Stradivarius of explaining Enstone's history is already included in a much easier way for the reader. On both the Renault in Formula One and Lotus F1 articles, it is made clear to the reader that the facilities at Enstone have been home to several different teams competing in the sport. I can't see what else you would add on the current articles. QueenCake (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the replies everyone - they have certainly given me food for thought. I think perhaps some of the confusion here has stemmed from my use (and sources' use) of the word "team". Even if we include the information present in the sources, we don't have to claim that Enstone are a "team" - we could say that the E20 was named after the Enstone factory, which has housed several different constructor teams, for example. Would other editors be willing to include information on the naming of the E20 if we avoided the word "team" when mentioning Enstone? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd have no problem with that. The careless use of the word "team" would, I believe, cause a lot of confusion for the inexpert reader. With your suggested wording, we'd be keeping all the spirit of the naming without risking an implication that Enstone is something that it's not. The Lotus quote said that the car was named in celebration of the facility and the personnel, which I think is a good way to put it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the the word "team" has been made ambiguous by the insistance that the "group of people" that have operated under different owners and under different "constructor names" are not a "Team" (singular) in the common usage English language sense. It is that some in the F1 world choose to also use the word "team" as a synonym of "constructor" that has caused the problem here, and doing so gives rise to the apparent nonsense sentence: "the Enstone Team has operated as several teams. We cannot redfine English or ban the use of common-use of an established word, and we certainly cannot say, or imply, that there was ever more than one Enstone Team. So, no, I wouldn't support the plural use in that context. If we use the word "team" in place of, or even qualified by, "constructor" cannot pluralise it and we need to disambiguate it in some other way. We could say: "the E20 was named after the Enstone team, which has opererated under several different constructor names". Remember, it is more a tribute to the "bunch of people" than to the building. -- de Facto (talk). 07:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, so you're not in favour of using "constructor teams" in the plural, and there seems to be a good consensus from the WikiProject members that we should avoid conflating personnel at Enstone with any official F1 teams. Is there a wording that you can find that avoids both of these pitfalls? At this stage I think it may be best to leave the word "team" out completely. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think the best term is "constructor name", or just "contructor". "Team" might be used as a sloppy shorthand in some F1 circles, but I'm not sure it has any official status as representing either. In F1 there are a number of other terms in use too, some overlap and some are used in different ways in different contexts, such as: "entrant" and "constructor", which may, or may not also include the engine maker, as in "Lotus-Renault", "McLaren-Mercedes", etc. The official stats tend to be organiseed around a variation on "constructor" name (with or without the engine maker!). Teams can be bought and sold, renamed and have their "constructor name" changed, which does certainly show that they therefore transcend those things. How about: "the E20 was named in tribute to the achievements, over the last 20 years, of the Enstone-based operation, which has competed under three different owners and with three different constructor names in that time"? -- de Facto (talk). 16:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Lotus E20 discussion: convenience break #1
Would somebody please take a loot at this part of the page? This is the latest point of contention, discussing the technical design of the car. DeFacto claims it violates both WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL (though as I have pointed out, he has made no move to alert other users to it). This paragraph recounts the development of the reactive ride-height system, and the circumstances that led to it being banned. It draws on several reliable sources, including James Allen and Autosport. It is a summary of the details given in the articles that are referenced, carefully rewritten into layman's terms. It is not the first time that I have condensed lengthy techncial explanations into something that readers can understand - I have written entries on off-throttle blown diffusers, the F-duct and DRS concepts, mid-season regulations regarding camber limits, and several other technical points. I have never had a single complaint about them, or even so much as a re-write. I'm not suggesting that I own these parts of the article; I am merely highlighting the way that I am familiar with condensing a lot of technical information into encyclopaedic terms without losing any key details.
This is how the article appears now (I have removed the references, but they are included in the article):
| “
|
The Lotus E20 was developed with a "reactive ride-height" system. It was first proposed in January 2010, and spent the next two years in development before making its debut at the Young Driver Tests in Abu Dhabi where it was spotted by an Italian journalist. The system used hydraulic cylinders located in the brake calipers and suspension push-rods to make minute adjustments to the ride height of the car, thereby keeping the ride height at an optimal level throughout the race and providing stability during braking, and was initially approved by the FIA as being legal but was banned one week later. The FIA later confirmed that the reactive ride-height systems violated Article 3.15 of the technical regulations, which states that "any aerodynamic effect created by the suspension should be incidental to its primary function" and "any device that influences the car's aerodynamics must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car", and that the system's primary purpose was achieving aerodynamic gains as opposed to providing stability under braking and could therefore be considered a moveable aerodynamic device, the use of which is banned by the sport's techncial regulations.
|
”
|
This, I think, accurately and concisely summarises the issue. It described the development, the mechanics of the system, the ban and the circumstances under which it was banned. Perhaps the only thing missing is Lotus' reaction to the ban, but nobody appears to have commented. I expect the issue will be raised in four days when the car is launched.
And this is the version DeFacto is suggesting:
| “
|
It had been reported that Lotus Renault GP (now Lotus F1 Team) had tried out a mechanical device, designed to maintain ride height under braking, on a car at the Abu Dhabi young driver test in 2011. Since then, the FIA has ruled that such devices contravene the xxx [whatever] rules, so will not be a feature of the new car.
|
”
|
This, I feel, downplays the importance of the system, despite several teams copying it once they learned of it. It also implies that Lotus did not develop the system, which was later banned (and the FIA felt that it hadd been designed for aerodynamics benefit first and foremost), with the extended implication being that Lotus did not break the rules. It makes no mention of the mechanical operation of the system or its development, and even implies that it was never a part of the E20's development (despite the team having spent two years working on it). In short, I think this example best summarises why I cannot assume good faith in DeFacto's edits. It needlessly removes detail, downplays the importance and the coverage of the system, does not ascribe due weight, insinuates that Lotus never developed it and so never broke the rules and he claims it violates OR and CRYSTAL, despite having come from highly-reliable sources when DeFacto had previously used the "it's being reported by several people, so it should be included". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, let's have a look at the sources first. It doesn't look like DeFacto was disputing the use of Autosport, but he did say that jamesallenonf1.com was not a reliable source under our guidelines on identifying reliable sources. The site looks like a blog site, but I do see that James Allen is an F1 journalist, so I assume this is what you are basing your claim of reliability on. (I am also assuming it is the same James Allen.) Has there been any discussion of the reliability of this website before? If someone more familiar with F1 sources could enlighten me, it would be very helpful. Also, Prisonermonkeys, would you mind giving your thoughts on the thread above about the naming issue? What we do next is going to depend on your opinion of the tentative compromise I suggested. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is the same James Allen. I have often triangulated what he has printed - I have looked for other reliable sources reporting what he posts, and I have never come up short when I check them out. The reliability of his website has never been discussed, because no-one has ever raised objections before. Allen is a well-known journalist in the Formula 1 paddock, and hosts each of the post-race and post-qualifying sessions with the drivers. I see no reasonable doubt as to his reliability. Especially since what Allen posted is supported by what was published by Autosport.
- As for the naming issue, my stance is that the name of the car should be covered, but there is no need for excess detail. A single sentence summarising the reason for the name is enough. This is precisely what we did with the Ferrari 150° Italia, the last car to carry a signficant name (it does contain an additional subsection, but this is related to a naming dispute with Ford). Anything more than a single sentence would be giving undue weight to the name of the car. I would be happy with a slight re-write for clarity, but any more detail on the reasons behind it is unnecessary.
- With regards to the name of the team, the answer is simple. The team was known as Renault in 2011, and changed its constructor name to Lotus for 2012. When it did so, the FIA recognised it as an entirely new entry. Any results the team scores will be credited to them and not to Renault, just as any results Renault scored will not be credited to Lotus. We have always dedicated a new page to a new constructor, and this has never been an issue in the past (ie, we have separate pages for Jordan, Midland, Spyker and Force India despite the team changing its constructor name four times in as many years). The issue here is somewhat more complex, since there was another Lotus team in 2011, but it was operated by different people, out of a different factory with no connection to the current Lotus. The FIA recognises them as separate constructors, as do we. I feel that this is important to mention, because even though the Lotus E20 is named in tribute to the Enstone factory, the team itself is considered a new team. Therefore, if we were to mention the championships won by the physical team at Enstone, it may imply that Lotus won those titles when they did not. Sufficiently explaining that the team name has changed several times in the past twenty years would be better-suited to the team page. And I think that if you looked at the team critically, you would find very few people - if any - who joined the team in 1992 and are still there today. If you look at the noted staff section of the infobox on Benetton Formula (the name used when the team first moved to Enstone), all of them have moved on to other teams or retired. So although the car may be named for twenty years at Enstone, too much emphasis on this would be misleading. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Prisonermonkeys,
- On the Allen source, as I said in my response to your earlier comments: "If neutral parties can agree that the self-published site you quote is a reliable source, then I won't argue with that...".
- The choice of name departs from the general cold dispassionate convention of using the next consecutive number appended to a one, two or three letter abbreviation of the team's current constructor name. The way the name was chosen, and described to the press by the team boss; as a tribute to the record of the team over the twenty years that it has been based at Enstone was the main emphasis of much, if not all, of the press coverage so far of the car's reveal. So that there is a cultural and team ethos dimension to it makes it worthy of an amount of article space more than might be the case if it was chosen as just the next number in the sequence.
- There is widespread agreement in WP:F1, a view which I am also on the record there as subscribing to, that the correct article split is by constructor name - there is no current argument about that, that I am aware of. But we must not imply that "constructor name" is a synonym of the common-use meaning of the English word "team". For that reason it is perfectly legitimate to refer to the 30-year lifetime of the entity (10 years at Witney, 20 at Enstone) by using the singular version of the word "team". The "Witney/Enstone team" (commonly now abbreviated to "Enstone team") has competed under 4 different constructor names, yes - but it is a team with a contiguous history, culture and heritage - we must not seek to obfuscate, or even deny that reliably documented fact.
- -- de Facto (talk). 10:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Prisonermonkeys, I did not suggest it breaks WP:CRYSTAL, and you say the references are there: the crucial one isn't and there is a question over the reliability of others. Read my sentence-by-sentence reason for removal on the article's talkpage again. My main problem with your content is that it asserts second-hand speculation of the system's existence on an earlier prototype car as fact of inclusion on the new car. The first sentence is not supported by a reference. The reference that the car has such a system is a reference to speculation that the car has such a system (no problem there so long as it is described as specultion). The referenced site reports the speculation of an F1 journalist or photographer, so second-hand speculation, some may call that heresay. If neutral parties can agree that the self-published site you quote is a reliable source, then I won't argue with that, but the account needs accurate representaion as a report of someone else's speculation. Your synthesis at the end, building on your unsupported assertion that the the new E20 car has such a system, then juxtaposing that with a couple of separate references describing the FIA's different interpretations of their own rules (which do not themselves associate the interpretations specifically with any system on the new Lotus E20 car) is pure WP:OR.
- The version you quote as my suggestion is the starting point I offered for discussion on the talkpage. It makes clear the speculative nature of the story and does not assert anything which is not verifiable. WP:VER is the guiding light here, I believe. -- de Facto (talk). 09:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- It makes clear the speculative nature of the story and does not assert anything which is not verifiable.
- Taken on its own, maybe. But looking at it compared to your other edits related to Lotus, it becomes a problem. Like I said - a lot of your edits portray the team in a very positive light. Like your early edits about the name of the E20 chassis, which suggested that Lotus had won several titles when they have, in fact, not done so. Your suggested edits imply that Lotus did not use or itnend to use the system at all, and with the FIA banning it because they realised that its primary function was aerodynamic gain (which it had previously been pitched as aiding stability), your edits suggest that Lotus did not break any rules, and therefore did not do anything wrong - which goes hand in hand with your havit of making them out to be "better" than they actually are.
- And, like I said, the extended detail of the RRH system had been in the article for some time before you decided it was unfit. And you did not decide that it was unfit until consensus on the naming issue started to go against you. Once it became apparent that other users did not support your idea of extended coverage on the name of the car, you removed the design content from the page, and you still have not made any move to alert other users to the supposed issues related to it (and you still have not provided an adequate reason for this). I find the timing of your edits and the events surrounding them to be suspicious. I don't know what your purpose is, but I think you are definately pro-Lotus and want to make them out to be as good as possible. This is why I can no longer assume good faith in your edits. What do you not understand about this? Having observed your behaviour, I do not think your edits serve the interests of the page because of your inherent bias towards Lotus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Prisonermonkeys, I think you are clutching at straws now.
- You are misrepresenting my comments. I have never implied or "suggested that Lotus had won several titles". I have reflected the widely supported fact that the team (the same one that will now compete using the "Lotus" constructor name), which has a contiguous history transcending different owners and constructor names has (an undisputable fact) won 4 or 5 championships.
- You are implying that my "aunt Sally" proposal for discussion and refinement implied Lotus were not going to use the RRH system, which I can't see in it, but which we currently have no reliable source for anyway. If you disagree, then upate the draft appropriately, and with RS support, for us to review. Has Lotus broken any rules? I don't know, they haven't raced the E20 yet, and I haven't seen any reliably sources account of what it comprises yet. Don't forget, the car's official launch hasn't taken place yet.
- I initially accepted your account of the RRH system, in good faith. However, from what I knew of the situation, I thought it did had a ring of "jumping to premature conclusions" about it. It was when, a couple of days later, I re-read it, and attempted to verify the content with the sources, that I decided it needed drastic re-work, and opened the discussion. This was entirely unrelated to the ongoing discussion about how we covered the name choice.
- I don't quite follow the rest of your last passage above. Who haven't I alerted, and about what? I opened a discussion (this one) to explain my deletion, and offering an improved draft to work on. Are you attempting to imply I have a non-NPOV agenda, or what?
- -- de Facto (talk). 10:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Really? This is one of your earliest edits to the page:
- The car is named the "E20" as a tribute to the team members and their twenty-year history and achievements at their Enstone facility. When explaining the reasoning behind the name choice, the team's principal, Éric Boullier, is quoted by Autosport.com as stating: "Our naming of the chassis to recognise Enstone's importance to the team's evolution highlights our recognition of the contribution of the facility and the personnel who work tirelessly every year to produce the very best car possible". Since relocating to Enstone in 1992, the team has won four drivers' championships and three constructors' championships
- Note the final sentence:
- Since relocating to Enstone in 1992, the team has won four drivers' championships and three constructors' championships
- It makes no attempt to explain who won those titles, or under what circumstances, despite Lotus F1 being recognised as an entirely new team.
- As for your open discussion, you know perfectly well that only a small hanful of editors have been working on the E20 page. Despite claiming that the design subsection was both specualtive and based on original research, and that if it had been posted elsewhere it needed to be reviewed, you never did anything more than post on the E20 talk page.
- I'm not implying that you have a NPOV agenda. I'm stating it outright. Between your edits to this page and others, and some of your "contributions" to discussions (which always end with the discussion going around in circles before a consensus against you can be reached), I believe that you are attempting to edit articles in favour of Lotus, particularly after their negative publicity in 2011 and the court case with Tony Fernandes. You are trying to make Lotus look better than they are by talking up the positive aspects of the team and the car and downplaying their role in developing illegal technology. When I say that I no longer assume good faith in your edits, do you think I'm just kicking around a term I have only learned in the past day or two? No. I'm saying that I don't trust your edits, and I don't trust your ability to edit for the benefit of the article. I've seen enough from you to come to the belief that you are biased in favour of Lotus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Prisonermonkeys, these are serious accusations, and I don't think we will be able to progress with the normal channels of dispute resolution until this is sorted out. Dispute resolution requires all parties to be able to discuss the disputed content with a view to making a compromise, and from your comments it doesn't look like this is possible here. If you are serious about pursuing these allegations of biased editing, then I'll close this thread and refer you to one of the conduct dispute resolution forums listed at our dispute resolution page. I recommend wikiquette assistance as a good starting place, and I also urge you to compile some convincing evidence in the form of diffs. (Conduct dispute forums tend to look dimly on serious accusations that are not backed up by hard evidence.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Prisonermonkeys, on your first paragraph; yes, really!. Did you read what I wrote? Did you read the supplied RS (this one that you clipped from your quote)? Let me take you through it, step... by... step...
- Using this quote that you are holding up from my edit: "Since relocating to Enstone in 1992, the team has won four drivers' championships and three constructors' championships", in conjunction with the Reuters reference that it cites.
- Me: "Since relocating to Enstone in 1992,"
- Reuters: "Enstone has been the headquarters since Benetton, who started as Toleman and won titles with the young Michael Schumacher before becoming Renault and winning again with Fernando Alonso, moved there in 1992."
- Are you able to see where I got the "Enstone" and the "1992" from?
- Me: "the team"
- Reuters: "Kimi Raikkonen's Lotus Formula One team, formerly known as Renault,"
- This one you may find a little more tricky as logic is involved, but let's try: "formerly know as", in that context, means that the name of something has changed. But what we can also say is that, in that context, the only thing that it could possibly be referring to as having had its name changed is "Kimi Raikkonen's Lotus Formula One team". So we can reliably say that the Lotus team was formerly known as Renault. Note that is does not say "which has now replaced the Renault team at Enstone", or anything similar. It is definitely saying that the name of the team (in the singular) has changed, so there was only ever the one team, and it was renamed. Have you followed that?
- Me: "has won four drivers' championships and three constructors' championships"
- Reuters: "Benetton, who started as Toleman and won titles with the young Michael Schumacher before becoming Renault and winning again with Fernando Alonso"
- Schumacher won the DC with them twice, as did Alonso (2 + 2 = 4). They won the CC as Benetton once and as Renault twice (1 + 2 = 3). OK, or do we need to source that breakdown of the numbers?
- There we have it, so yes: "really"! And no, Lotus F1 isn't an entirely new team, it is the same old team, with an entirely new name. Read the material, apply the logic. If you think that the constructor names and/or the team's name at the time the championship wins need to be explained and spelled out in more detail, then feel free to do that.
- -- de Facto (talk). 14:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Prisonermonkeys, on your "open discussion" paragraph.
- The first place to discuss the content of the article should be the article's talkpage.
- As I explained on the the article's talkpage, I wasn't claiming that the design section itself was specualtive, but that it was based on second-hand speculation, conveyed, not as the speculation that it was, but asserted as fact. Yes there was OR too, and at least one unsourced assertion.
- You haven't informed me where else that content has been posted yet, despite being asked.
- -- de Facto (talk). 15:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can appreciate that you are frustrated here, but the put-downs (e.g. "This one you may find a little more tricky as logic is involved") really aren't helping things. If we are to have any chance of resolving this to everyone's satisfaction, we must start concentrating on content and stop concentrating on each other. Dispute resolution will not work if everyone is at each others' throats. To both Prisonermonkeys and DeFacto - I recommend taking a day away from this discussion to try and get some perspective, and to think of productive things to try to work out your differences. The alternative to this can be seen at the top of this page: "Off-topic or non-productive discussions can be closed after due warning, as the board is designed to defuse disputes, not escalate them." Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Mr. Stradivarius, you are right. He keeps repeating the same misapprehensions and not assimilating the expanded explanations given, and is now throwing wild allegations too. I'll tone it down a little. I'll continue to answer the points, but stick to content as you say. -- de Facto (talk). 16:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Prisonermonkeys, on your comments related to your statement that you believe that I "have a NPOV agenda" (and given your track-record, I'll assume that what you actually meant was "non-NPOV"). You are making the bizarre allegation that I am attempting to edit articles in favour of Lotus! That wouldn't be because you are a sore loser given that your various attempts (article talkpage, WPF1 talkpage, DRN (here), grovelling, misrepresenting the issue and whinging directly to an admin here and here and here, or even a request for page protection) to get my criticism of your poor quality additions censured has failed, would it? And surely not because you think my good work is undermining your attempts to try to discredit Lotus, is it? Or, and I'll assume good faith (as you should), more likely that you are miffed that, despite your best endevours, you cannot get your own way on the various bits of content?
- -- de Facto (talk). 16:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with me being upset about my edits being undone, and everything to do with your behaviour. I have noticed that you have done the following:
- You have ignored a preliminary consensus on the naming issue, editing content into the page despite several users agreeing that it was excessive an unnecessary. You then tried to claim that there was "guarded support" for your edits, and that this was enough to override the preliminary consensus.
- Whenever an issue has been raised at WP:F1, the discussion rapidly goes off-topic shortly after you join the debate. As a result, no lasting consensus is formed, which I believe is you sabotaging the discussion to prevent a consensus against you.
- You have assigned undue weight to certain elements of the article, adding detail where it is unnecessary and removing detail that is important. Your own arguments for these have been contradictory at best.
- You had no issues with the content in the design subsection of the page until a consensus began to form against you on the naming issue.
- You have proposed edits that have implied Lotus are "better" than they actually are.
I am well aware that these are serious accusasions that I am levelling against you. But I wouldn't be making them if I didn't believe them to be true. You are correct in saying that I went to an adminstrator. You will notice I have done this before to deal with a disruptive editor. I went again because I was unfamiliar with the dispute resolution process, and I was asking advice and for a quick review. You were the one who entered a conversation you had no part entering. And as for the RFP, I noticed that you were in the habit of reverting changes as soon as you saw them on the E20 page. And I would restore them straight back, because I felt that your edits were inappropraite to the page. Since I could see the inevitable course that this would follow, I decided to take the initiative and request page protection so that we could sort the issue out.
It has nothing to do with "being a sore loser". It has nothing to do with "your good work", because your work is not very good at all. I am not trying to misreprsent the team one way or another, because while I don't particularly like them, I don't particularly dislike them, either. I have no interest in discrediting them - I am simply interested in portraying them as accurately as possible. You are the one who overstates the importance of the Enstone team's success whilst downplaying the effect of the RRH. You are the one who tries to stop a consensus being formed by deliberately obscuring the issue, and when that doesn't work, you are the one who holds the page hostage the minute consensus goes against him. You are the one who argues for the inclusion of some content based on reliable sources, but then removes other content and ignores their reliable sources. You are the one who has been over-stating the quality of his edits.
So, here is what I propose: we both back off. We are clearly both too close to this. So I suggest we refrain from editing the E20 page for a week or so. When the car is launched, more detail will be added to the page (like the infobox). After one week, we will assume that the editors have left the page in an acceptable state (we will invite them to edit the page fully). I am fully willing to do this, but it only works on two conditions: that we both do it, and that we do not try lobbying for certain pages when other people edit the page. We simply invite people to review and edit the Lotus E20 page, and leave it at that. After one week, we come back to it and assume it has been reviewed and that the page is in the most accurate and NPOV state that it can be in. The advantage of this arrangement is two-fold: the page will accurately re-written, and because we have to trust one another not to edit the page for one week, we can begin to assume good faith in each other's edits once again. It sounds perfectly fair and reasonable to me, but we both need to agree to it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Lotus E20 discussion: convenience break #2
For what it's worth, I think that Falcadore's point about recentism is the key here. Pretty much every reference that de Facto has cited can be traced directly back to recent press releases from the Bouiller/Lopez/Genii group, or to interviews given by them to journalists. Very few are more than 12 months old. This seems to be a widespread, orchestrated campaign by the current owners of the Enstone facility to generate some quasi-official "heritage" for their brand new constructor, presumably in an attempt to position themselves better in forthcoming contract negotiations. Why an ever-changing group of employees, some of whom pass on to a new constructor when the previous one is bought out, but plenty do not, should be regarded as a "team" is beyond me. Whether de Facto likes it or not, the term "team" is a loaded one in a Formula One context, and does not simply refer to a "bunch of people", but is used as a common shorthand for "constructor". For a new constructor to be claiming race wins and Championship titles that were bought and paid for by completely different commercial organisations is disingenuous at best, and fraudulent at worst. It seems a shame that Wikipedia seems to be being drawn into this. Pyrope 15:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's bury the myth that the concept of a team, its heritage and its culture, continuing contiguously despite owner changes and constructor name changes, is only a recently conceived one:
- October 2001: "... there was almost no mention in Suzuka that the Japanese GP was also the last race for the Benetton team - at least in name anyway. The team will become Renault Sport next year and the name Benetton Formula will disappear to the record books."GrandPrix.com
- June 2004: "Allison started his F1 career with the Enstone team when it was known as Benetton, back in 1991"GrandPrix.com
- December 2010: "Enstone is no stranger to name changes. In fact, next year marks the 30th anniversary of this team competing in F1 under various names."yallaf1.com
Three after a quick Google, and specifiacally for "Enstone". I'm sure if all those who are seeking to perpetuate the myth, instead did a few searches themselves, that we could bolster that number no end! -- de Facto (talk). 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
-- de Facto (talk). 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- The first of those refers to the name change from Benetton to Renault, following the sale of Benetton to Renault, and the corporate entity didn't change at that point. This is a spurious refernce for this discussion. The second, I'll grant, is a reasonable one that backs up your point. The third, however, is a puffed-up blog posting of dubious reliability, and in fact appears to be an near-transcript of recent Lotus Renault GP press releases that still link to the current owners. I did as you suggested, and when the term "Enstone team" is searched for it turns up a slew of blog postings and media snippets, the vast majority of which do not appear to be much more than 12 months old. Interestingly, when the same term is searched for at Google Books or Google Scholar, not a single hit results. Odd that. Pyrope 17:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- The first was about the the topic of this discussion, the constructor name changing whilst the "team" carried on as the same team regardless (Renault actually acquired the team in 2000, but continued with the Benetton constructor name for 2000 and 2001). You know though, that this about the concept of a "team" crossing owner, team name and constructor name boundaries, and not about how often the term "Enstone team" is used literally. Did you try for other contexts like The Enstone based F1 team, team from Enstone (or from anywhere else) or the Brackley team or the Silverstone team or the Toleman/Benetton/Reanault team there are an infinite number of combinations? -- de Facto (talk). 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just trying to compare apples with apples. Renault acquired the constructor Benetton in 2000, and then changed the constructor's name at a later date. Nothing in there tells me about the people who were employed; the continuity of your purported "team". Interestingly, at no point did Renault try and claim any of the 2000 and 2001 Benetton results as belonging to Renault, which surely they should have done if they considered it the same team? I could rearrange the alphabet into whatever order you like, but if you want references that support your point of view it really is up to you to do the legwork to find them. Pyrope 19:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're trying to obfuscate the issue again. The only valid point cited source used the "team" word in the context that some here are attempting to deny exists. Neither Renault nor Lotus have claim to any of the awards won by the team prior to their involvement, and I'm not aware that either have made any such claims; why would they? What is clear though is that the team has won those awards, albeit under different constructor names.
- Let me try and make it clearer:
The Enstone team history
| F1 Seasons |
Constructor name |
Main base location |
Drivers' championships
(under specified constructor name) |
Constructors' championships
|
| 1981-1985 |
Toleman |
Witney |
0 |
0
|
| 1986-2001 |
Benetton |
Witney then Enstone |
2 |
1
|
| 2002-2011 |
Renault |
Enstone |
2 |
2
|
| 2012 - |
Lotus |
Enstone |
0 |
0
|
| Team total |
|
|
4 |
3
|
- Does that help? -- de Facto (talk). 21:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is arguing that different constructors based at the Enstone facility, and employing some of the same staff, have won various Championships down the years. Most of us engaged in this discussion have already stated that we don't have any problem with that sort of wording. However, you continue to try and force through your opinion that there is some sort of underlying meta-team that should actually take credit for all this. I and many others have disagreed with you. As for not claiming titles that aren't theirs, I suggest you go back an re-read the NYT article that you cited over on the WP:F1 page. In it Eric Boullier states "The strength of the team is that it has won the world championship many times. It is a good size, we have the latest upgrades...". At that time he was head of Renault GP. "Many times" to me indicates that he's including more than just the twice that Renault could legitimately claim. Therefore he is including the Benetton championships. He's repeated similar claims in recent interviews and press releases relating to the E20, as well. Pyrope 21:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pyrope, the team is the "meta-team", as you put it. The reality, and the sources bear that out. You may not agree with them, but your personal opinion (and mine) doesn't carry any weight. Boullier was correct, he never claimed that the awards were all won under the Renault constructor name, but by the "team", by which he obviously meant the "meta-team" (see my table above). And he's in a strong position to know who the team are, as team boss, don't you think? The NYT obviously agrees to. This is all leading to the one inevitable conclusion, it seems to me. -- de Facto (talk). 22:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- He's also in a strong position to be ambiguous with the statistics and manipulate facts to suit his commercial aims. If you are telling me that he's got Flavio Briatore, Nick Wirth and Pat Fry, and Tom Walkinshaw's coffin, on the payroll then maybe he does know what the "team" of 1994 looked like. I have no access to their payroll details, but I'd be very suprised if the staff turnover at the more junior levels isn't on a similar order. Add in the redundancies and new hirings made every time a new owner sweeps in and your "reality" suddenly becomes just another opinion; a minority one, as we have previously discussed ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Yes, you have a few sources that draw a line from one Enstone entity to another. However, as Bretonbanquet points out below, there isn't any official standing to this, no results databases collate information for the Enstone Team, and the Enstone Team has never won a single thing. As Prisonermonkeys has shown above, at every turn you have tried to push through a form of wording in the affected articles that either obfuscates that issue or outright makes it sound as though "Enstone" ranks up there with the official constructors. Pyrope 22:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pyrope, all organisations have a staff turnover, especially over 30 years. Why should the Enstone group be any different? Soccer teams remain intact, despite ownership changes and coach and manager changes. Why should the Enstone group be any different? This isn't an "opinion", as you would like to characterise it, it is a self-evident fact. That there is no "official" recognition of the Enstone team as a 30-year old entity is irrelevent - this is fact-based Wikipedia, not the official FIA F1 handbook. The NPOV is the POV that I am pushing - it seems to me that there might be other agendas at work with one or more other contributors. -- de Facto (talk). 22:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- As you said, DeFacto, your personal opinion doesn't carry any weight. Regarding the NYT source: of course Eric Boullier is in a strong position to know what he's talking about, but he's also in the strongest position not to be neutral. You're actually interpreting his words the way you want. Plus, as other editors have pointed out, the Enstone based entity-meta team doesn't bear any status of any kind. It doesn't compete in anything. It doesn't win anything. Would you like to have a World Championship for facilities too ? I have read through the entire discussion, and I have to say it is really surprising it got that far. In the end I don't even understand why you're still discussing it. In my honest opinion, I don't think you will succeed in convincing all of the editors involved, not even achieving consensus. And talking about common-sense and logic regarding other editors surely won't help. Maimai009 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- (e/c) Here's what's "obfuscating the issue". Benetton won one constructors' championship, and Renault won two. Enstone didn't win any. "The Enstone team" has never won a championship, won a race, scored a point or, in fact, even entered a race. There has never been a team called the Enstone team. The only teams who win championships and races in Formula One are the named constructors, in this case, Benetton and Renault. There is no mechanism for saying that any other outfit won them. To imply that there's a superteam called Enstone that won championships is to utterly confuse matters while adding what is at best, trivia, and at worst, implication that the current Lotus team won them. It's like saying that Manchester have won the FA Cup 16 times, whereas the facts are that United have won it 11 times and City five. What is the earthly point of merging them when the sport just doesn't work in that way?
- Furthermore, Lotus can be seen to be veering towards claiming the history of other constructors by using the word "team" in an ambiguous way. They refer to themselves as "the Lotus team", and then referring to 500 races "for this team through its different incarnations". It's perilously close to blurring the official line between what are incontrovertibly different constructors. It's obviously in Lotus' interest to do that, as a commercial boost, but we should not be buying into it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bretonbanquet, you are right, Enstone didn't do any of those things; it was the Enstone "team" that did, under the constructor names of "Benetton" and "Renault" (see my table above). The "mechanism" is common-use or everyday common-sense and logic. No, the team has never won anything as Lotus, just as Renault and Benetton. Manchester teams, not Manchester, have won the FA cup 16 times, as there are two, unlike the one F1 Enstone team. You could say that the Old Trafford team has won the FA cup 11 times, even if over its history it had changed its name (although Pyrope may challenge you as the same people haven't always worked there), as Bolton Wanderers did.
- It doesn't matter that you think that Lotus have an agenda to big-up the team's achievements, the fact, as supported by common-usage of the word and more explicitly in numerous independent articles, stands. It isn't Wiki's job to try to deny or suppress self-evident facts. The Witney/Enstone team is 30-years old and has been at Enstone 20-years and has won the championships mentioned, under two of the four constructor names it has used. -- de Facto (talk). 22:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Way back in the mists of time I mentioned the Longbridge analogy. You dismissed it out of hand because you didn't feel that one car factory and its workforce could compare to the other car factory and its workforce, purely based on the fact that one had a race team and design studio attached and the other didn't. I don't see the difference myself. As I said then, it seems to me absurd to argue that the same "team" that assembled Morris Minors back in the 1950s are the same "team" that now assemble Minis. However, based on your logic they surely are. As for the Old Trafford team I don't recall Mike Atherton or Clive Lloyd ever holding The FA cup aloft, do you? Pyrope 22:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cowley wasn't it? And you made the mistake of assuming that BMW have the old Morris works, they don't, they have the old Pressed Steel Fisher site, that used to bash out panels for most UK car makers, Morris included, but they had no car development capability. They were a production facility, not a self-contained car development team, and their skills were dispersed over the decades with the merging and de-merging of Nuffield, BMC, BL, Rover, etc. They are in no way comparable to the relatively small, and self-contained specialised team at Enstone, that has remained relatively intact for 30 years, 20 of them at Enstone. If you had chosen, say, Jaguar, for your analogy, I might have agreed with you. They have always been a relatively small, self-contained car development team. They came from independence, merged into BL/Rover, went back into independence, were acquired by Ford and now have been sold to Tata Motors. Today's team is the same team that it always has been though, based in Coventry (and Gaydon too now), they produced the XK120, the E-type, the Mark 2, the XJ 220 (sort of) and the XK, amongst other notable cars. -- de Facto (talk). 23:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Lotus E20 discussion: proposed resolution
Despite the amount of virtual ink that has been spilled over this dispute so far, it doesn't look like we are actually any closer to resolving it. I think implementing Prisonermonkeys' solution would be a very good idea. DeFacto, would you be willing to leave the article alone for one week if Prisonermonkeys also does the same? This will give you some time to reflect, and there should also be more sources available when you come back. If you still have problems after that, then I would recommend filing a case at the mediation cabal. In my opinion the discussions so far have sometimes suffered from a lack of focus, and I think mediation would be the best way to redress this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am fully prepared to observe this, on the three conditions outlined above (I'll repost them here for good measure):
- Neither of us edit the Lotus E20 page for a period of one week.
- That we extend an invitation to all editors at WP:F1 and on the E20 talk page to review and edit the article (possibly with instructions to disregard anything on the talk page for the sake of neutrality).
- That neither of us solicits any kind of edit to the page. That means that we cannot request any kind of edits - even to fix typos - from any editor.
- It's fairly obvious as this juncture that neither of us trusts the other, and will likely only revert and edits the other makes. Walking away from it for a week and leaving it to the provence of other is the only way I can think of to totally resolve the issue, protect the integrity of the article and rebuild the assumption of good faith between the both of us.
- If and when DeFacto agrees to this, then I think that Mr. Stradivarius should be the one to post the resolution and the terms of it at both WP:F1 and the E20 talk page. Once he has done that, both of us should leave a comment (and sign it) stating that we agree to the terms of it. Once the second signature has been added (we need to allow for time differences; I'm Australian and I think DeFacto is European or American), the one-week grace period will begin.
- PS - I made this into a subsection of the discussion so that we can easily find it. Hope nobody minds. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mr. Stradivarius, I agree to your proposal; which does not include soliciting, touting or inviting edits, by anyone, from anywhere, particularly from WP:F1 or Talk:Lotus E20. Such action would be unacceptable to me.
- Prisonermonkeys, you speak only for yourself when you say that you "will likely only revert and edits the other makes". I base my edits of the contributions of others on content, not editor. -- de Facto (talk). 07:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- DeFacto, please read Mr. Stradivarius' comments again:
- "I think implementing Prisonermonkeys' solution would be a very good idea."
- As I said, I re-posted my proposal from earlier, for your convenience in finding it. Please note the following line (although the bold section should read "certain edits" and not "certain pages"; this is an error on my part):
- "I am fully willing to do this, but it only works on two conditions: that we both do it, and that we do not try lobbying for certain pages when other people edit the page. We simply invite people to review and edit the Lotus E20 page, and leave it at that."
- No solicitation of edits was always part of my proposed solution, and the reason for it is to stop the both of us from agreeing not to edit the page, and then going and asking other editors to include or remove certain content. This is not something that applies exclusively to you. The solution is quite clear on this point - it only works if both of us agree to all of the terms. In the interests in the article, I think the best thing for both of is is to walk away from it. Completely away. That involves no editing, inviting other people to rewrite and expand the article where necessary and appropriate, and doing so in a way whereby we do not attempt to influence the content of the article in any way, shape or form. Otherwise, we're just going to be back here in a week when nothing about the article has changed. I think that this is the fairest way of doing things, and I believe Mr. Stradivarius agrees with me (if this is not the case, Mr. Stradivarius, plase feel free to correct me). If you have some alternative solution to the problem - one that protects the integrity of the article and allows us to assume good faith in one another's edits - then I'm willing to hear it. But the three terms of my proposal (no edits for one week, no solicting edits for one week, and informing the wider F1 editing community of the agreement) are not negotiable. I believe all three are equally-important to achieving a fair and equitable resolution. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Prisonermonkeys, Mr. Stradivarius wrote: "I think implementing Prisonermonkeys' solution would be a very good idea". I took that to mean just this bit: "So I suggest we refrain from editing the E20 page for a week or so." Not all the misrepresentation, false allegations and fallacious logic that surrounded it, and certainly not this outrageous assertion: "After one week, we come back to it and assume it has been reviewed and that the page is in the most accurate and NPOV state that it can be in."
- Read my statement again, particularly the piece following this: "... which does not include...". That is where I stood (past tense) on this; until I re-read your earlier complacent diatribe, and your arrogant addition just here. I'm about to review that position now, in the light of your further comments.
- -- de Facto (talk). 08:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mr. Stradivarius, as a result of reading Prisonermonkeys's latest addition; before the one-week embargo starts, I would also like the article to be reset to include the "Name choice" section that Prisonermonkeys deleted in this edit restored into the article. In that way we will be starting with a level playing field. His revertion of my edit, here still stands, so I think, to be fair, that the section that I believe we also need should be given equal status. -- de Facto (talk). 08:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- You already had a preliminary consensus - three to one - against including that before this was raised. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Prisonermonkeys,
- "Preliminary consensus"? Please point us to the wiki policy defining that concept.
- "Three to one"? Is consensus now redefined as "majority"?
- -- de Facto (talk). 09:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ok, it looks like we have a rough consensus for a week-long break. I've written precise terms of the agreement below. (I think putting it here makes more sense than on the talk page, as it's not directly about the article contents.) I've also specified that any other editors can edit the articles, but I don't think there is agreement for advertising for editors to come and improve the article before the week starts. In any case, most of WikiProject F1 know about this dispute now, so the point is mostly moot. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- DeFacto, about restoring the section on naming before the week - I'm afraid that whatever version we leave it at, it will be the wrong version for somebody. The page protection policy gives admins two options for the version on which to protect: "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Looking through the page history, I don't see a clear "pre-dispute" version, so the normal thing to do in this case would be to keep the current version. Note that this doesn't preclude what happens after the week is up, or what other editors choose to do during the week. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mr. Stradivarius, fair enough. I'm cool with that. The lesson there though seems to be: revert, revert, revert, in an attempt to get one's preferred version to be the "current version".
- Thanks for your efforts to sort this out. -- de Facto (talk). 10:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Lotus E20 resolution
Further to the discussion in this dispute resolution thread, User:Prisonermonkeys and User:DeFacto agree to the following conditions, which shall apply until midnight on Saturday 10th 11th February 2012 (UTC):
- They will not edit the Lotus E20 article, or its talk page.
- They will not discuss the Lotus E20, or any of the issues brought up in this dispute resolution thread, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. They are also strongly discouraged from discussing said issues anywhere outside the English Wikipedia.
- They will not solicit any edits to the Lotus E20 article, or its talk page, or to discussions about the issues discussed in this dispute resolution thread, from any other editor.
- They agree to leave the Lotus E20 article and its talk page open for normal editing; furthermore, they will not interfere with that editing process in any way.
After midnight on Saturday 10th 11th February 2012 (UTC), User:Prisonermonkeys and User:DeFacto will be free to return to editing the article and its talk page. They are reminded to respect the contributions of other editors who may have edited the article in the meantime, and to work towards building consensus on the talk page in the case of further disagreements. If discussions break down, they are urged to seek further dispute resolution, for example at the mediation cabal. Prisonermonkeys, DeFacto, please leave your signature below to indicate that you agree to these conditions. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing. I just noticed that I got the date wrong in my resolution text above. To clarify, it should be Saturday 11th February. Sorry for the trouble, but can you both confirm this below? Otherwise I'll leave this thread open for another day or so to avoid any confusion. Thanks for your help. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Or should that be Friday 10 February? It's more than 8 days until midnight on the 11th. -- de Facto (talk). 11:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Friday 10th would give us 6 days, 12 hours, and 50 minutes; Saturday 11th gives us 7 days, 12 hours, and 50 minutes. It should be the 11th in order to get a whole week in. Would this be ok with you? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's about 11:20 3 February 2012 (UTC) now, so 7 days hence will surely be 11:20 10 Februray 2012, so midnight on 11th is in about 8 days 12 1/2 hours time - isn't it? -- de Facto (talk). 11:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see the problem. I'm talking about 24 hours before that. As in, the midnight where Friday 10th turns into Saturday 11th. 0000 hours. Does that clear things up? :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Perfect, thanks! -- de Facto (talk). 11:42, 3 February 2012 (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.
|
