Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
|
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, 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.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Algeria | Closed | Lord Ruffy98 (t) | 5 days, 21 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 18 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 18 hours |
Yasuke | Closed | Tinynanorobots (t) | 21 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 17 hours |
Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader) | New | Crawdaunt (t) | 3 hours | None | n/a | Crawdaunt (t) | 3 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 10:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputes
Talk:ZX Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes#Summary of the discussion so far (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Z80Spectrum (talk · contribs)
- Chaheel Riens (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Everything happened on the talk page of the article "ZX Spectrum graphic modes". Multiple parts of the talk page were removed by Chaheel Riens, in a single edit, abruptly and without any prior consultations with anyone. Those parts were present on the talk page for two months, and were agreed as OK by another long-time editor of the page (4throck), perhaps not in entirety, but he gave positive opinion at least for some parts. Most of the removed parts were written by the user Z80Spectrum. Note: he registered today, previously he used IP addresses 80.80.52.*. An important part of the removed content is a computation of the ZX Spectrum palette into sRGB color-space. Note that the ARTICLE still contains some data which is the result of the said computation; such is since 2 months ago. Chaheel Riens claims that multiple policies were broken, including WP:FORUM, WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO. Z80Spectrum claims that Chaheel Riens is misinterpreting the policies, and provides counter arguments. User Remsense then joins into the discussion (by himself, previously not involved). He discusses with Z80Spectrum. Z80Spectrum argues that WP:OR does not apply due to triviality (WP:CALC), and that he is just improving accuracy, since previous data was equally WP:OR, but less accurate. Noone is disputing the accuracy of new computation. User 4throck is the author of the old computation, and he agreed two months ago that the new computation is more accurate. Chaheel Riens thinks he doesn't need to post any additional counter arguments to Z80Spectrum's arguments. Z80Spectrum claims that such conduct constitutes a fallacy of "proof by assertion". The discussion is quite long, but the central and most important part is in the first 11 posts after the "Summary of the discussion so far".
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Someone_has_just_deleted_all_of_my_suggestions
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I think that an opinion about alleged violations of WP:FORUM, WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO could persuade involved parties. It should include opinion whether those policies were violated. Perhaps a few short instructions what should be done with the removed content, one of: - revert entirely - revert some parts or a summary needs to be written - the removed parts should stay removed
Summary of dispute by Chaheel Riens
User is new to Wikipedia, and doesn't yet appreciate or understand the admittedly many different policies and processes that are in place - both official and informal, but doesn't seem willing to learn before jumping in - WP:BOLD notwithstanding.
Additions to the talk page fell foul of WP:FORUM, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:OR, WP:OWN, and I removed them. Another editor (Remsense) has also expressed concern over the user's edits, both content and tone, but asked not to be involved in DRN so isn't listed here.
User is extremely verbose, and often meets WP:TLDR, making it difficult to follow and reply, and as it's been established that English isn't their first language, several statements have been antagonistic and rude in tone - not directly related to the issue at hand, but it does make communication strained.
This is not just a DR about the article, but is rooted in the editors actual behaviour. I've left templates on talk pages, added comments and advice, but the user is making changes without understanding why things are done the way they are done, and expects all to agree to their terms.
I removed detail from the Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes page here as I believe it breaches WP:FORUM, WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR. User Z80Spectrum - the author of the comments - thinks differently. Discussion has made no real progress.
Talk:ZX Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far discussion
Thank you, moderator. Unfortunately, I'm confused by the UI, so I don't know what to do next. Is there something I should do, or do I just need to wait a bit more? Also, to make this quicker, I think that I do not want DRN Rule A (but I'm not sure). The reason: I would like to avoid locking the disputed article, because my estimate is that there is no edit war. I just want to hear an opinion of an experienced party. - Z80Spectrum - Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (ZX Spectrum)
I have two questions for the editors. The first question is whether you are requesting moderated discussion in accordance with DRN Rule A. Moderated discussion is voluntary. Moderated discussion at DRN will only be about article content. User conduct will not be discussed. Often the resolution or orderly discussion of article content issues can permit user conduct issues to subside. If an editor really wants to discuss user conduct, they should first read the boomerang essay and then report the conduct issue at WP:ANI, but then this case will be closed, because we do not discuss issues involving the same article in two forums at once. An editor who does want moderated discussion of content should answer the second question. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So please state concisely what sections or paragraphs of the article you want to change (or what you want left the same that another editor wants to change). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (ZX Spectrum)
Thank you moderator. I would prefer WP:DRN Rule B. If there are some good reasons not to use DRN Rule B, then I will consent to WP:DRN Rule A.
My opinion is that this is a dispute about article content, because the allegations of policy violations on the talk page directly affect the part of the article about colors, specifically the preferred simulated colors and values in the color-table [1], and also affect allowed or preferred methods to generate most images in the article, i.e. most images in the article are also in dispute. Z80Spectrum (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I would prefer the color-table and the related colors to stay the same as they currently are. I would prefer that the first image in the article stays as it currently is (more precisely, the methods of creation of that image should stay the same, while the content of the image is irrelevant). I would prefer that other images in the article are eventually modified (to use my preferred methods of creation), although this is neither necessary nor urgent. Z80Spectrum (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Besides this, I would like a definitive opinion of an expert whether WP:FORUM, WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO were violated, and whether the related discussion should stay on the talk page or should it be removed, so that this same argument does not need to be repeated over and over again. Z80Spectrum (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- I removed detail from the Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes page here as I believe it breaches WP:FORUM, WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR. User Z80Spectrum - the author of the comments - thinks differently. Discussion has made no real progress. This is a content dispute brought on by differing interpretations of policies named. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
First statement by possible moderator (ZX Spectrum)
One editor has asked if we can use DRN Rule B rather than DRN Rule A. Rule B allows back-and-forth discussion. Since discussion does not appear to have become repetitive, I am willing to agree to DRN Rule B. However, they say that they want Rule B to avoid locking the article. Please read DRN Rule B again. See rule B.4. Rule B permits back-and-forth discussion, but I do not currently have a rule that leaves the article unlocked. Cases at DRN almost always involve an article that at least one editor wants to change. If a dispute does not involve changing an article, maybe it should be somewhere other than DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
One editor writes:
I would like a definitive opinion of an expert whether WP:FORUM, WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO were violated, and whether the related discussion should stay on the talk page or should it be removed, so that this same argument does not need to be repeated over and over again.
Well, DRN is not a place to ask for a "definitive opinion of an expert", and I don't think that happens in Wikipedia, but the real question appears to be that User:Chaheel Riens removed 26 Kilobytes of material from the talk page that was inserted by an unregistered editor who was probably User:Z80Spectrum. I have read the Talk Page Guidelines and advise the other editors to read them. Maybe Chaheel Riens interprets the Talk Page Guidelines differently than I do. They are not clearly written. However, it is my opinion that the removal of material posted by another editor to an article talk page is only allowed under unusual circumstances, and those circumstances were not present. So the removal of the large amount of talk page material was an error. However, talk page conduct is a conduct issue, and DRN is not a conduct forum. I have no authority to reinsert the removed material.
It is not clear whether Chaheel Riens is willing to discuss article content. It is also not clear whether Z80Spectrum wants to discuss article content. If both editors want to discuss article content, they should state what changes they want to make to the article. If they do not both agree to DRN Rule B, I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, I'm applying WP:FORUM point 4 -
In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines
and WP:NOTGUIDE, where I believe the posts removed breaches point 1, and possibly 6, 7 & 8. As you say -They are not clearly written
and seem to be written in an exclusive style, rather than an inclusive one. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (ZX Spectrum)
- I agree to either [DRN Rule A] or [DRN Rule B], but I would prefer [DRN Rule B].
- I am willing to discuss the content of the color-table [2], and the images in the article.
- The DRN states: "we focus on resolving disputes through [...] advice about policy." I would like to hear an advice about policies WP:FORUM, WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO, related to the objections that the other editor has raised on the talk page [3] about the contended parts of the article.
Z80Spectrum (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
About changes that I, or other editors, want to (posssibly) make to the article, they are outlined in the removed parts of the talk page: here [4], here [5] and in the last three posts of this thread [6]. Z80Spectrum (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have come here under threat by Z80Spectrum who posted on my talk page -
you have to answer Robert's questions. Otherwise, you leave me no choice but to report you to WP:AN. There I can also blame you for not attempting to WP:NEGOTIATE
- however looking at the article history shows that I'm the last person to edit this section anyway - here, where I stated my reasoning. I'm not sure what else is required from me at this point. - I think the main problem here is that the issue covers so many different points that a single DR may not be adequate. It's not just about the content removal, but also the behaviour of Z80 Spectrum once it had been done, and the interpretation of policies that led to the removal and disagreement. If Robert thinks that this is the wrong place to cover the issue(s), then close it and let's try elsewhere. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Moderator, I have read your comment at WP:ANI [7]. I now request, in agreement with the rules of WP:DRN, that the discussion here at DRN is immedediately closed. Also, it is my opinion that DRN is not the correct place to discuss issues related to conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z80Spectrum (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (ZX Spectrum)
Based on guidance from both Village Pump and WP:ANI, I will try to mediate the dispute over the removal of talk page posts. I will be developing a ruleset for this discussion in the next 24 to 48 hours, but in the meantime, here are some rules:
- 1. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts may make the poster feel better, but are not informative to the moderator or the community.
- 2. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator, and to the community, and the moderator represents the community.
- 3. Comment on content, not contributors.
- 4. Discuss edits, not editors.
- 5. If you have any questions for the moderator, ask them here, not on the moderator's talk page or by email.
- 6. Do not edit the article or the article talk page unless the moderator permits editing.
The issue at this point is the removal of approximately 26K of talk page material that was posted by User:Z80Spectrum and was removed by User:Chaheel Riens. I will ask each editor to make a one-paragraph or two-paragraph statement. User:Chaheel Riens should explain why they removed the talk page content, and User:Z80Spectrum should explain why the removed material was relevant to improving the article.
I will also note that one editor at Village Pump mentioned that a compromise could be restoring the material to a talk page archive. This article talk page does not yet have archiving set up, and I will set up archiving to archive posts that were made in previous years.
User:Z80Spectrum - I wrote this while you were writing your request to close this case and to treat the talk page removal as a conduct issue. I have been asked to treat the talk page removal as an article talk page content issue, and to conduct moderated discussion. I would suggest that you follow the guidance of User:Ritchie333 who closed your complaint at WP:ANI. I will not decide whether this is a content issue, within scope of DRN, or a conduct issue. You, User:Z80Spectrum, have three choices at this point:
- A. Take part in this discussion.
- B. Go back to WP:AN or WP:ANI, which might result in another closure, or even a boomerang.
- C. Do nothing.
User:Chaheel Riens - You have three choices at this point:
- D. Take part in this discussion (by explaining the talk page removal)..
- E. Go to WP:ANI.
- F. Do nothing.
I am doing what I think I was asked to do by the community, which is to try to resume moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (ZX Spectrum)
I agree to take part in this discussion. I agree to the suggested compromise of restoring the removed tp-content to the archive. I have already discussed such an option with the other editor here [8], and on his talk page also.
I have previously provided arguments why the tp-content should not be removed, mostly in my first few posts here [9]. I can write a summary of my arguments here at DRN. Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I would also like to immediately highlight another argument, which perhaps isn't sufficiently obvious: if a claim is made that my methods are WP:OR, then the same should apply to the methods previously used to produce the contended article content and the contended images, and a similar situation exists in all other articles about 80's microcomputers. Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, note that I did set up archiving for the talk page in preparation for end of discussion and explained the usage to a curious Z80Spectrum here, but they then removed it here.
- My summary - for this issue of removal of information - is the same as it has always been: I feel that the information removed is based on Z80Spectrum's personal investigation, research and knowledge, and as such is Original Research. Different editors - Vquakr, Escape Orbit, Ritchie333 and Remsense - have agreed in general with this principle and stated as much on the talk page. The information also serves as an instruction guide on how to replicate the ZX Spectrum display on modern equipment. This is NotHowTo. There is also a question of WP:OWN where Z80Spectrum has requested that I and another editor stop editing the article and
should just let me and 4throck improve the article; we had quite a fine cooperation before you intervened
. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (ZX Spectrum)
User:Chaheel Riens - Do you agree to moderated discussion about the talk page removal? You haven't explicitly answered.
User:Z80Spectrum - Why did you delete the code that signals ClueBot to archive the talk page?
Are there any issues about article content (as opposed to article talk page content)?
Are you both willing to compromise on the removed material by archiving it? If not, please make a statement as to why not. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Statement 3.1 by moderator (ZX Spectrum)
Please read DRN Rule F. Those are the rules for discussion of an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (ZX Spectrum)
Yes, I agree to discussion. I thought that was implicit by the fact that I was discussing the topic already, and that's all I've done since 8th January. As I've mentioned elsewhere I'm not able to edit as frequently as I used to at the moment, but I'm joining in where and when I can.
With regard to archiving - see Archive Settings on the talk page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I am willing to compromise on the removed material by archiving it.
ClueBot III issue. I think it is unfair to add a complex mechanism like the ClueBot III in the midst of a dispute, especially when one of the parties in the dispute is inexperienced. Also, as per my understanding, the ClueBot III would have archived two topics related to the dispute. Therefore, I removed automatic archiving and proposed to discuss the list of topics that should be archived manually.
Article content. There are still issues in the current version of the article. All of them are about quality or accuracy of article images. For example, I was preparing |this image to replace |this article image. A few other images need some immediate but simple improvements (i.e. new color palette needs to be applied). Most other images should be improved, but they can remain the same for the time being. It takes a lot of work to create a high-quality image, so I'm unable to do it all by myself, I simply don't have enough spare time.
- Z80Spectrum (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Template:Politics of Armenia
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed as probably either declined or resolved. There is not enough information to open a moderated discussion, probably because the editors are not asking for such a discussion. Resume discussion on the template talk page. If discussion is inconclusive and lengthy, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
General Collective Intelligence
Closed as the wrong forum, and for other reasons. I concur with the comments of the previous volunteer editor. It appears that the filing editor wants a draft article which he has written accepted as an article. DRN is not a forum for discussing the acceptance of draft articles. That can be better done at the Teahouse or at the appropriate WikiProject. DRN is a forum for moderated discussion of disputes about the content of articles (and occasionally other spaces such as templates). I partly disagree with the filer's statement that Wikipedia is a platform for spreading ideas. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, is responsible for summarizing ideas that have already been discussed by primary and secondary sources. The filer may ask the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to clarify whether they, as an academic author seeking to publicize their own work, have a conflict of interest. At this point, the filing editor may either submit the draft for AFC review, or move the draft back to article space, but if the draft is moved back to article space, it will probably be nominated for deletion, which involves a seven-day discussion. The filing editor is also advised to ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Playboi Carti
Closed as moved to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. This dispute is about information about a living person, and there is a noticeboard for that purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
sensitivity analysis
Closed as probably premature, and for lack of notice. There does not appear to have been extended discussion on any one article page. Sometimes extended discussion on an article talk page results in agreement. Also, the filing editor has not notified MrOllie on his user talk page. Please resume discussion on an article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here. The filing editor is reminded to submit articles for draft review or to make edit requests to add references to their own work; they seem to have learned that; if so, thank you. Resume discussion on an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Hi User:Robert McClenon I left a comment on your Talk page, thanks for your help.Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Kaspersky bans and allegations of Russian government ties
Closed as at least partly a conduct dispute, involving serious conduct allegations. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Single-domain antibody
Closed for various reasons, including failure to list other editors, and that the requester was blocked for legal threats. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
RPL (programming_language)
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
One editor claims that RPL is “object oriented” when it is clearly not, and in the talk page, there has been an extensive discussion on why none of the references cited for the “object oriented” claim actually reliably support it.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
On the RPL talk page : Talk:RPL_(programming_language)#Object_oriented?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Another editor or editors who has a greater knowledge of OOP could either verify or disprove that RPL is object oriented, and whether said claim is supported reliably by the cited sources.
Summary of dispute by Jdbtwo
I started the dispute regarding whether RPL is object oriented on the 27th of November 2021. I stated the reasons which show that RPL is not OO. I removed the claim but it was reverted and then changed to “Partially object oriented.” I then systematically deconstructed the sources cited to support the claim and I showed that said sources do not reliably support the claim. I then removed the OO claim, but it was restored again by the opposing editor. Jdbtwo (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
RPL (programming_language) discussion
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (RPL)
Do the editors want to try moderated discussion? Please read DRN Rule A, and answer whether you agree to moderated discussion. Are there any issues besides whether the language can be described as partially object-oriented? If so, please state concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
Does a reliable source in computer science, such as a journal article or a textbook, characterize the language either as object-oriented or as partially object-oriented? Stating that the language is object-oriented based on some of its properties is synthesis amounting to original research unless the same conclusion is drawn by a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (RPL)
John de Lancie
Closed as not previously discussed. The filer wants to call various editors with varying degrees of involvement with the article to conduct a discussion on an edit that they want to make. That is, they are requesting a volunteer moderator to facilitate the discussion. DRN is for article content disputes that have already been discussed at length by the editors, when the discussion has been inconclusive. A volunteer moderator is only needed if there has already been normal discussion by all of the parties, and it has been inconclusive. In this case, it appears that the filer hasn't tried inviting the other editors to normal (unmoderated) discussion at Talk:John de Lancie. That would normally be the next step. Three of the editors have made statements that amount to declining to discuss further, and either DRN or normal discussion are voluntary. The filer may invite the remaining editors to discuss at Talk:John de Lancie, or may start a Request for Comments, or may conclude that they are in a minority. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|