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.
|
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 09:46, 17 January 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[edit]
Talk:ZX Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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)[edit]
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)[edit]
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)[edit]
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)[edit]
- 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)
Template:Politics of Armenia[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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 |
---|
Kaspersky bans and allegations of Russian government ties[edit]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Kaspersky bans and allegations of Russian government ties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
I made a contribution to the page on 7th January 2024, referenced and relevant to the topic as a whole and the section added to. On 11th January 2024 this was reverted by the new user Byte-ul (account created on the 11th) after my first and only (civil) comment on Reddit to the user (also on the 11th). Byte-ul alleged that my contribution was 'malicious' and 'vandalism', which is untrue.
After three reverts by me and four by Byte-ul (one while signed out), I opened a new topic on the Talk page to resolve the issue. Byte-ul initially replied that the contribution wasn't relevant (untrue) and that the sources were not applicable (untrue, and seemingly unread by Byte-ul as they referred to them as 'articles', which only one is).
I responded to Byte-ul's allegations in full, and their subsequent response was essentially just, "I do not agree with this contribution," followed by misrepresentations (untrue and hypocritical claims of 'personal attacks' and making edits to 'settle personal disputes').
I then asked Byte-ul to explain why they disagreed, but they never replied. However, today another IP address reverted my contribution again. The location of the IP address is similar enough to the first one that I believe it's safe to assume this is Byte-ul again. I reverted, with a note requesting that Byte-ul engage with the Talk page discussion. Byte-ul then reverted again. There has been no further discussion on the Talk page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Hopefully a third opinion is given which both parties agree to.
I'm happy to make edits if necessary, although I'm unsure what those would entail.
Summary of dispute by Byte-ul[edit]
Kaspersky bans and allegations of Russian government ties discussion[edit]
Single-domain antibody[edit]
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 |
---|