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 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 |
| Rafida | In Progress | Albertatiran (t) | 33 days, 21 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 11 hours | Albertatiran (t) | 1 days, 7 hours |
| AT&T Corporation | Closed | Emiya1980 (t) | 3 days, 14 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 2 days, 19 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 2 days, 19 hours |
| Yasuke | New | Theozilla (t) | 11 hours | None | n/a | Theozilla (t) | 11 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 22:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Talk:Microsoft Hearts#Mathematics section
– Discussion in progress.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Jasper Deng (talk · contribs)
- Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)
- Unscintillating (talk · contribs)
- Lynton1 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
I removed the "mathematics" section on the grounds of it violating WP:NOR (and not being compliant with WP:CALC), which Unscintillating and Lynton1 disagree with me on. After explaining repeatedly how the section is not compliant, discussion has pretty much reached a standstill. Codename Lisa opposes the inclusion for other reasons, namely it being non-encyclopedic and poorly written. I don't like my arguments being dismissed as just "pointing to a policy" when I have explained quite clearly how those policies apply here.
Perhaps most importantly, this seems to be going nowhere without further opinions.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have attempted to seek third opinions at WT:WikiProject Computing#Talk:Microsoft Hearts without success.
How do you think we can help?
Consensus is something that occurs among multiple editors. I would like much broader input on this dispute, particularly those with experience with game theory.
Summary of dispute by Codename Lisa
On principle, I am neither against a section of this nature nor in favor of it. In this case, however, what I opposed was category-2 patent nonsense and contextless statistics. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Unscintillating
The dispute here is that Jasper Deng insists on his version of the page, and denies that a consensus version of the page exists suitable for further discussion. We already see editors confused on the talk page because we haven't been able to return to a stable version of the page and move forward, and they are discussing problems which I have reason to believe would already be resolved. Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- As part of my initial response regarding the contested section (not to be confused with the current dispute regarding what defines consensus), I wrote, "If I thought Jaspar [sic] would object to a reasonable next edit restoring most of the section, I'd go back to the consensus version of the article first." So from the first I have been expecting that Jasper Deng would either understand the definition of consensus based on his experience, or if he was a newbie he would cooperate in reasonable edits that respected his viewpoint. We now know that didn't happen. WP:EDITCONSENSUS says, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."@Robert McClenon:, What I would like to get from this discussion is for Jasper Deng to show that he supports WP:EDITCONSENSUS, including that he understands the concept of using and discussing from a consensus version of the article, to enable a path to a new consensus. Unscintillating (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Lynton1
The section has developed slowly and deliberately over two years. I think it is an integral part of the subject matter and adds meaningfully to it. There is nothing controversial in the section. I occasionally visit to see if there are new additions. Quite recently (approximately two weeks ago) I visited and made what I thought were minor editorial changes - basically just trying to improve readability and add a .png file. If I had realised my "good faith" actions would result in removal of the entire section I would never have attempted to edit in the first place. I would be satisfied if the section remained as it was before I attempted to improve it. I disagree with removal of the entire section. I think the reasoning for removal is pedantic. I agree completely with the views expressed by Unscintillating.
Talk:Microsoft Hearts#Mathematics section discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. Moderated discussion here is voluntary.
Do the editors want moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- I would like it. @Unscintillating: does not seem to understand what I think is a very clear policy-based argument for excluding the content.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
First statement by moderator
I will be acting as moderator at least to get statements as to what the issues are. Please read Mediation Rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. I will be neutral, but neutrality does not mean ignoring or bypassing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issues are about what should and should not be included in the article? (Do not discuss other editors. Discuss the article.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
First statements by editors
- The section in question is patently original research whose verification is not sufficiently "routine" to fall under WP:CALC, and per WP:DUE we should not be giving that much coverage to original research. The section as-is also was very poorly written and would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. Ideally we should have a reliable source for the discussion, as it is something a reader might like to see, but none has been supplied; the burden to provide one is on those who want the content included.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
It appears that there is a substantive issue and a procedural issue. The substantive issue has to do with a section that some editors want to remove and some editors want to keep or restore. The procedural issue appears to be that a consensus developed over time for having the section. My own opinion is that the substantive issue trumps the procedural issue (although there is no trump suit in Hearts), and that if two editors think that the section should be removed, there is no longer a consensus, and the issue should be why to keep or remove the section, not the history. Will each editor please state whether they agree or disagree with these statements and why they agree or disagree with the section? Will each editor please state any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Statement 2.1 by moderator
- Also, if some editors want the section retained and some want it kept, a Request for Comments is always an option. The fact that the section has been there in the past should be considered, but is not conclusive because consensus can change. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Statement 2.2 by moderator
I may have misunderstood the latest comment by User:Unscintillating and may need it clarified. It appears that they are saying that they would like to withdraw from participation here, and participation here is voluntary, and instead report this controversy to the edit-warring noticeboard. That is their privilege, and a report to a conduct forum will cause this discussion to be closed. However, it seems that two different experienced editors (Unscintillating and myself) have very different interpretations of policy on editing and consensus, and either I have misunderstood what they are trying to say, or they misunderstand what the options are at a conduct forum, or I misunderstand the options for dispute resolution. Are they requesting that the previous version of the article be restored and locked down because it is the stable or consensus or historical version of the article? If so, this is contrary to my understanding of how edit consensus is applied, but I may be mistaken. If not, I have misunderstood. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
- I agree with this assessment, and disagree with the section for the aforementioned reasons. Also, since I opened the DRN thread, it's now 4 editors in favor of removal (2 commented after I opened it).--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- As for there being a "section" in dispute, no, there are seven paragraphs and an 18-line table.The moderator states, "I will be neutral, but neutrality does not mean ignoring or bypassing Wikipedia policies and guidelines." Yet the sentence I quoted from WP:EDITCONSENSUS is policy. If Jasper Deng's version of the article is used as the discussion version, restoring the consensus version of the article requires arguing that we need to restore a "citation needed" paragraph, when the real question should be that of changing the consensus to remove the citation needed paragraph. What I really think is that the first order of business should be to see if this dispute is better for the encyclopedia by taking Jasper Deng to the edit warring noticeboard. Unscintillating (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator
It appears that there is a content dispute about a section that has been removed, and that several editors think that it should remain out, and at least one editor wants to restore it. There doesn't appear to be a consensus. As noted above, consensus can change, and history doesn't justify retaining a section if editors disagree. Will User:Unscintillating please explain what their substantive reason is for wanting to keep the section (not history only)? Does any editor have a compromise proposal? Otherwise we may resort to a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Third statements by editors
- With five editors favoring removal versus two against, a naive vote would clearly be in the favor of removal of that content. Whatever consensus there was before, any consensus there is right now would be for removal of the content, so it should not be restored. Interpreting the results as more than a naive vote, it seems clear that there are a number of well-founded policy-based reasons (WP:NOR, WP:DUE, among others) for removing the section, and the two editors in favor of the content have yet to supply a convincing rebuttal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I only see two editors who want to treat the content issue on the basis of the entire section. For other editors, there are multiple content issues for the seven paragraphs and a 28-line table. I mentioned the win-rate paragraph in my first post on September 17. Most other editors have discussed the win rate paragraph, and two editors have only mentioned this one paragraph. Editors who have mentioned this paragraph include Jasper Deng in a diff from the article page, which shows, "2017-09-17T06:18:46 Jasper Deng...WP:CALC is not applicable here, especially with regards to win rate..." The win-rate paragraph was tagged with a CN tag, and it was this tagging that started the entire current discussion. Much of the complaint regarding "WP:OR" is directed at this paragraph, so resolving this one paragraph should clarify much of the WP:OR issue. I would like to know if Lynton1 agrees that consensus is against keeping this paragraph. Unscintillating (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
multiverse
– Discussion in progress.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
After discussing on talk page, I added a reference and video to clarify an aspect of the multiverse. After a few days, Jytdog made 3 objections all of which were invalid. Although only in Wiki briefly, a positive comment was made:"The removal of the James R Johnson paper citation seems a little premature. ISPCJournals does not seem to be on Beall's List. The paper didn't look half bad and even contained a reference to another paper I hadn't known of before. Is it right that the citation was so quickly removed? It is not obviously pseudoscience. 96.237.136.210 (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)"
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We have communicated directly via email about motives and my expertise.
How do you think we can help?
Need another opinion on value reference adds to Wiki Multiverse Section.
Summary of dispute by jytdog
Nothing meaningful was done offline via email. The relevant Talk page discussion is at Talk:Multiverse#Removal_of_James_Johnson_reference.. The filer has acknowledged writing the piece that they want to cite, so WP:SELFCITE is at play here.
On September 9, the OP was added a citation to the paper to the Multiverse article in this diff. On the same day, the OP added an EL to the paper in Philosophy of physics in this diff, and a video talking about the paper (which is here) was added to Laws of science as an EL in this diff. So this is WP:REFSPAM. I get it that it is important to the OP to cite their paper (and the accompanying video) but while people can use Wikipedia to promote their own publications, that is not what Wikipedia is for.
On the level of content and adding value, I don't see that this paper summarizes accepted knowledge; it instead presents a novel synthesis. The paper says "This article defines a conceptual model separating the laws of nature from the universe’s energy source and its expansion" and the short text describing the video says "When creating a universe, is there a choice for the laws of nature? This talk addresses this question by proposing a conceptual model with three parts: space, energy, and expansion. The laws are classified as either universal rules, laws of physics or symmetry. Traditional fine-tuning is not the whole story." However, we use reviews, textbooks, and book chapters that communicate accepted knowledge as sources, not novel syntheses.
The OP believes that this paper is a secondary source, that summarizes accepted knowledge. In my view it is not but is rather a novel synthesis, and describes itself as such. This is the core of the content dispute.Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I believe I have explained that this is COI-driven refspam. I also explained that because it is a primary source, it is not the sort of reference that we generally use. As the OP is appears to be an expert in the field it would be great if they would bring references that are true reviews and add content based on them, not just a citation. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
multiverse discussion
- Volunteer note - The basic issue appears to be that an editor is trying to insert a reference to their own paper. There has been discussion on the article talk page. Wikipedia should not be the means to publicize your own work. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
First statement by moderator
Volunteer note - I will be moderating this discussion in attempt to help the parties reach a resolution. Please remember to be civil and comment only on content, not contributors. My responses will be guided towards a resolution acceptable to both parties and in full compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The principal issue appears to be whether or not the paper (where WP:SELFCITE is relevant) adds value to the article. Will each editor please state why they believe the reference is or isn't citation spam? Is either editor opposed to a request for comment which may gather some outside input from other editors on the issue regarding the value of the content? -- Dane talk 04:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer note - Reminder to participate in the case sent to both parties. -- Dane talk 05:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
First statement by editors
The following is how I previously responded to self-promotional criticism: "Jytdog, I am not promoting anything but ideas and research that expand or clarify the Wiki information! I have done extensive research in each of the topics based on reliable sources. The benefit to Wiki is the analysis and organization of the material which would aid anyone else thinking about the same issues." Also, another reference from the Canadian Journal of Physics was deleted. My previous response: "How does inserting the Scott article promote me? It is relevant and should remain." Jim Johnson 14:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Second point from previous talk: Jytdog, this is not a theory but a model based on fact. When discussing the multiverse, the laws of nature are assumed. By acknowledging and defining them, a complete picture is obtained. This this article, quoting 14 noted physicist, adds direct value. The comments above, by one user on Sept 10, confirm this. Since it was deleted after a day, how much more support would it receive? Please provide specific justification for deletion.
- Third point: "The Kuku book, which I have, does not address dimensionless constants so I replaced it with the results of my research. I strongly feel it is a mistake to delete relevant articles if content adds value to existing Wiki content. The whole idea is to improve the information."
- It appears all my recommendations were deleted in mass without understanding the content.Jim Johnson 14:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Third point: "The Kuku book, which I have, does not address dimensionless constants so I replaced it with the results of my research. I strongly feel it is a mistake to delete relevant articles if content adds value to existing Wiki content. The whole idea is to improve the information."
Second statement by moderator
Volunteer note - The main issue here is whether or not the additions to the three impacted articles (Philosophy of physics, Laws of science, and multiverse) constitute WP:REFSPAM. Jimjohnson2222 believes their conduct adds value to the articles in question and has concerns about the rapid removal of another reference. jytdog has offered an explanation based on timing of revisions and the quality of content (including how the content presents itself). Upon reviewing the statements by the editors about why they believe the content is or is not in violation and referencing back to the applicable policies, this does appear to be a case that could be perceived as WP:REFSPAM. It is also a primary source without any secondary sources and should not be analyzed, evaluated, interpreted or synthesized without a secondary source presented. After reviewing the source, it appears special knowledge of the topic would be required to understand it, which also conflicts with WP:PRIMARY. In light of the guidance by policy, Jimjohnson2222, can you provide more information on why you feel this should be included despite our policy guidance? Do you have a compromise proposal that can address these concerns? -- Dane talk 20:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Dane/Jytdog, this is a complex dispute because it involves seven changes (numbered and listed below in bold along with previous comments) to three separate Wiki sections. The articles referenced reflect over two years of research on the issues (my hobby). I submitted the changes to Wiki because they add value to the topics. If someone has a specific interest in multiverse or constants of nature, they would not have to read all the references and repeat my analysis. Quoting Wiki:” Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication.”
All of my material has internet free access so I am not sure what is being prompted. The timing of my changes, seven at once, was based on my availability to review Wiki material and submit changes. Obviously, this caused concern. Compromise? Numbers one, five and seven are not associated with any disagreeing arguments so should not be in question. Two and three reference the multiverse article which I personally feel is important because it clarifies Einstein’s quote on possible choices for the laws of nature. When I discovered very little was published on this topic, I wrote the article which explicitly explains the issue. As one unsolicited reader said, it was a good reference. Number four, the video, is a summary of the laws of nature analysis. Not completely understanding the policy on External Links, this may or may not stay depending on other opinions on the multiverse article value. Number six, my article, defines dimensionless constants for the standard models of particle physics and cosmology. It clarifies this complicated issue. Although I my opinion it should be a reference, I placed in External Links so not to be considered equivalent with the other noted references by famous physicists. Thus, any compromise should be based on content and the arguments presented. It is back in your hands. Please advise.
Previous documentation and numbered changes A. Philosophy of Physics, Reference 1. Deleted “not found” reference (clean-up) – remains as changed (one) 2. Added my article from Journal of Philosophy and Cosmology – deleted by jytdog (two)
3. Comment. Quoting 14 noted physicist, article adds direct value to any discussion on space and time.
B. Multiverse, Reference
1. Added my article from Journal of Philosophy and Cosmology – deleted by jytdog (three)
2. The removal of the James R Johnson paper citation seems a little premature. ISPCJournals does not seem to be on Beall's List. The paper didn't look half bad and even contained a reference to another paper I hadn't known of before. Is it right that the citation was so quickly removed? It is not obviously pseudoscience. 96.237.136.210 (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
a. obvious REFSPAM and more importantly, a primary source. We build WP from secondary sources that describe what is going on in a given field, not papers presenting individual theories -- we have no way to know how much WEIGHT that should be given to them, and we should not try to judge. Has nothing to do with pseudoscience per se. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
b. Jytdog, this is not a theory but a model based on fact. When discussing the multiverse, the laws of nature are assumed. By acknowledging and defining them, a complete picture is obtained. This this article, quoting 14 noted physicist, adds direct value. The comments above, by one user on Sept 10, confirm this. Since it was deleted after a day, how much more support would it receive? Please provide specific justification for deletion. Thanks Jim Johnson 15:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
C. Multiverse, External Links
1. Added video describing Model deleted by Jytdog (four)
2. Jydog comment: Citation spam[edit]Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation. Variations of citation spamming include the removal of multiple valid sources and statements in an article in favor of a single, typically questionable or low-value, web source. Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia. 3. Logic for deletion is dependent on the logic for deleting B above and thus not valid. D. Dimensionless Physical Constants, Reference 1. Added Scott reference (five)
2. Added my article (Physics International) as external article. (six) 3. Delete from External Articles the Kaku book (seven) 4. Jytdog deleted all without commenting in talk.
5. Comments: a. Quoting from Talk Page: “I recommend the following changes. 1. Add below to the Cosmology Constants section. This is an important distinction concerning the cosmology model. The reference provides clarifying detail. "The cosmology dimensionless constants are independent from, and cannot be derived from, the Standard Model dimensionless constants." [add to References, Scott, Douglas, 2006. The Standard Cosmological Model. Canadian J. Physics, 84: 419-435. DOI: 10.1139/p06-066, pp 12-12] 2. Delete from External Articles the Kaku book. I did not find any information in the book on dimensionless constants. 3. Add to External Articles a source covering dimensionless constants from particle physics and cosmology: Johnson, James, R., 2015. Discovering Nature's Hidden Relationships, an Unattainable Goal?" Physics International 6 (1): DOI: 10.3844/pisp.2015.3.10. http://thescipub.com/PDF/pisp.2015.3.10.pdf Please advise on changes. If approved, I will put in proper format and make changes. Jim Johnson 17:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjohnson2222 (talk • contribs) “
6. As I responded to Jytdog in email: The first deletion on dimensionless constants does not meet your objections. In my 6 month research on the subject of constants, I found the Scott reference to be the best available. Why delete it? The Kuku book, which I have, does not address dimensionless constants so I replaced it with the results of my research. I strongly feel it is a mistake to delete relevant articles if content adds value to existing Wiki content. The whole idea is to improve the information
Talk:Longest-reigning emperors_in_China
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | DRN doesn't accept any case which is subject to any other notice-board or equivalent procedure.So, folks, battle it out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest-reigning emperors in China. Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Al-Khalid tank
– General close. See comments for reasoning.