Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to threads Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread(purge cache)
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, mediation, 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. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Button rediriger.png 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.

The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, whose role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. The coordinator also collects monthly metrics for the noticeboard.

The current coordinator is Nihlus.

Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

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

  • Refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment only on the contributions not the contributor. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
  • Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
If you need help:

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

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

Become a volunteer

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

Volunteers should remember:
  • Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
  • Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
  • Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Talk:HyperLogLog In Progress KingSupernova (t) 16 days, 23 hours Winged Blades of Godric (t) 5 days, Winged Blades of Godric (t) 5 days,
Talk:Survivor: Ghost Island Closed (t) 5 days, 1 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 16 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 16 hours
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#Roy Jones Jr. and Location of Foxwoods Resort Casino In Progress Mac Dreamstate (t) 4 days, 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 hours
Talk:Nigeen Lake Closed 2405:205:81:7320:25F6:BF93:7B85:8AB9 (t) 1 days, 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 18 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 18 hours
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Current disputes[edit]


Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by KingSupernova on 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

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

I'm having an edit war with Retimuko over some terminology on the page. The word "cardinality" is used incorrectly in one of the sources, and Retimuko appears to be unwilling to accept that and let me fix its usage in the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed the issue on the talk page, but do not appear to be reaching a resolution.

How do you think we can help?

I don't think Retimuko is acting maliciously, I think they're just misguided. A third party stepping in and confirming that the usage is in fact incorrect would probably resolve the issue.

Summary of dispute by Retimuko[edit]

I believe this is a case of some mismatch in terminology between some literature on the theory of multisets and literature on count-distinct problem in applied math. There is a large body of research into the count-distinct problem, including Flajolet's 2007 paper about HyperLogLog algorithm, using terminology described in the article. I believe we have to practice a descriptive approach as opposed to prescriptive. If reputable sources use this terminology, we must not just use another terminology in the article. At the very least the discrepancy must be explained somehow. I stated my points an proposed a compromise on the talk page, and I believe that this dispute has been opened way too early in the process when the discussion has just started. I don't mind any involvement of a moderator or just a third opinion. Retimuko (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:HyperLogLog discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. The comments by the filing editor make it appear that Third Opinion might be appropriate. If moderated discussion leading to compromise really is desired, the filing editor should notify the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Vol. comm.--If both the parties agree to a DR process, I am willing to step in as the moderator. Winged Blades Godric 07:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - The filing party did not notify the other editor, but I have provided that notice. If the other editor agrees to dispute resolution, moderated discussion will proceed, as noted above. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:Winged Blades of Godric - Are you ready to start moderated discussion, or should I start moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for having not checked the progress.I will be starting handling this within 12 hours.Winged Blades Godric 18:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note --Looking through the issues.Will be commenting shortly.Winged Blades Godric 04:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note --@Retimuko and KingSupernova:--Is Retimoko's last proposal acceptable (even if to a certain extent)?Can both of you please point out/list the respective sources that uses his preferred terminology? It may be worth noting that if a single source is found to contradict numerous others, we have to decide the content per WP:WEIGHT.Winged Blades Godric 09:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought I should wait for KingSupernova to present sources as initiator of this dispute, but on the second thought here are a few papers from prominent researchers in the field published in reputable sources:
1. (for completeness, the subject of the article in question) Flajolet et al, HyperLogLog: the analysis of a near-optimal cardinality estimation algorithm. Relevant quote: "...algorithm for estimating the number of distinct elements, known as the cardinality, of large data ensembles, which are referred to here as multisets..."
2. Graham Cormode. "What is Data Sketching, and Why Should I Care?". Communications of the ACM (CACM), 60(9):48-55, 2017. Quote: "... determining the cardinality of quantities: we might ask, in a data set that has many different values, how many distinct values are there of a certain type?"
3. Robert Sedgewick. Cardinality Estimation. Princeton University. Qoute: "Cardinality counting: Q. In a given stream of data values, how many different values are present?"
4. Stefan Heule et al. HyperLogLog in Practice: Algorithmic Engineering of a State of The Art Cardinality Estimation Algorithm. Google Inc. Quote: "Cardinality estimation is the task of determining the number of distinct elements in a data stream."
I am sure there are more if needed, but these should suffice I would think. Retimuko (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm....Waiting for the other side to chime in.Winged Blades Godric 18:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Survivor: Ghost Island[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#Roy Jones Jr. and Location of Foxwoods Resort Casino[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Mac Dreamstate on 19:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC).

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

User:JMichael22 and myself disagree on how Foxwoods Resort Casino should be labelled on professional boxing record tables, specifically Roy Jones Jr., which subsequently affects 100+ other articles. User:JMichael22 maintains that the venue should be displayed as being in the Indian reservation of Mashantucket, Connecticut; I maintain that it should be displayed as being in the town of Ledyard, Connecticut, in which Mashantucket is located.

MOS:BOXING/RECORD, specifically the Location element, has long stipulated that fight locations are to be labelled as "[venue] (arena, stadium, hall, etc.), [city or town], [state], [country]". Areas within a city (boroughs, suburbs, reservations, etc.) are overly specific and should be omitted for brevity on a wikitable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed extensively at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing, with both of us providing numerous WP:RS confirming that either descriptor (Mashantucket, CT; Ledyard, CT) is valid. Sources include primary and secondary. Overall, this is a labelling issue on which we cannot agree.

How do you think we can help?

Mediate on whether Foxwoods Resort Casino should be labelled, in professional boxing record tables, as being specifically in the reservation of Mashantucket, CT; or generally in the town of Ledyard, CT. Bearing in mind that labelling it as Mashantucket would somewhat disrupt the consistency set forth above in MOS:BOXING/RECORD, namely the convention of "[venue]/[city]/[state]/[country]".

Summary of dispute by JMichael22[edit]

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

I found it very simple the Foxwwods Resort Casino sits on the Mashantucket tribal land it is owned and controlled by the Mashantucket tribe. it is declared on numerous sources that the Foxwoods Casino is located in Mashantucket, CT. The Official website and social media accounts including Twitter and Facebook state the casino is located in Mashantucket. The Land is within Ledyard but has nothing to do with the town, it stands on its own as a Native American controlled and owned venue which is located on their land Mashantucket and is not under US government control. Ledyard is a town under US government control. Something that I feel makes things clear if the casino was part of Ledyard, CT then the Native American tribe wouldn't own the land it stands but that is not the case the tribe owns the land it is on and does infact through multiple sources refer to the Casinos location as Mashantucket, CT JMichael22 (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Volunteer comment - Towns are not under US (federal) government control in the United States. Towns, whether in New England or elsewhere in the US, and municipalities with other names, are established by and subject to the state. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#Roy Jones Jr. and Location of Foxwoods Resort Casino discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the project talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editor. A third editor has been involved in the discussion and should be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Have now notified the other editor. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator[edit]

I will try to act as the volunteer moderator. I don't know whether this is actually the sort of content dispute that is appropriate here, which is a content dispute where the objective is to find a compromise, or whether there is a simple yes-no question. Will the editors please read Mediation Rules and follow the rules? Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is or issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors[edit]



Talk:Nigeen Lake[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.