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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Spider-Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• The Editor 155 (talk · contribs)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Editor User:MrOllie believes that Category:Marvel Comics characters who can move at superhuman speeds should not be included on the Spider-Man article, although Spider-Man is well-known for possessing superhuman speed. The category had been on the page for a long time before they removed it. I re-added the category to the page with a source from Marvel.com and they still removed it as they said it was a misleading inclusion. There is a long discussion on the Spider-Man talk page where we tried to resolve the dispute, but I still firmly believe the category should be included.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spider-Man#Superspeed

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By deciding if the category is relevant and if it should be re-added.

Here are two sources which were both published by Marvel, which both describe that Spider-Man possesses superhuman speed.

^[1]

^[2] The Editor 155 (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
• I notified MrOllie on the article's talk page, and they responded. Hopefully, a consensus will soon be reached on the articles talk page. @The Editor 155:.

---

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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Night attack at Târgoviște (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Super Dromaeosaurus (talk · contribs)
• Keremmaarda (talk · contribs)
• OrionNimrod (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Keremmaarda has added a source to the article with an estimated figure of 15,000 for the size of the Ottoman army in the battle. This number contradicts all contemporary estimates. It comes from a single source which does not base this figure on any primary contemporary source nor on any analysis. The user keeps engaging in original research arguing that the estimates given in contemporary sources are unrealistic for X or Y reason, without providing sources to state they are unrealistic. They also engage in WP:SYNTH arguing that because the Ottoman army was smaller in 1476, the contemporary figures for this 1462 battle are unrealistic. User also shows a lack of understanding of primary and secondary sources and their use on Wikipedia.

Note that this is my first time starting a DRN report. If this summary is inappropriate just tell me and I will change it.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Night attack at Târgoviște#Casualties

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Determine whether the source citing this claim is reliable. It's this one, page 42.

Hello, people were disturbed by the example I gave in 1476. Since other editors such as OrionNimrod gave examples of the Battle of Mohács and the Ottoman wars in Europe independently of the subject, I gave the example of the military power of the Ottoman Empire in 1476. I did not use this as a resource. And I said Wikipedia doesn't care about primary sources. But other editors think that army numbers are taken only from period sources. However, I said that an estimated army number could be determined by examining the economic and logistical situation at that time. I leave it up to other admins and editors to decide whether my source is reliable or not. Thanks.

I added the 15,000 figure to the article, providing reference to army numbers. However, other editors objected to this situation.

Hi, I checked the provided source, in the talk page I showed the author is not a Turkish historian but a Turkish literature teacher. The provided source is "Turkish culture, literature and language" and not reliable regarding military history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources I also provided modern academic historian source which say the number of the Ottoman army was superior comparing with the Wallchian one, which is quite logical because Ottoman Empire was very big and Wallachia was small and do not have a big population especially comparing to the Ottoman empire, also the Sultan never marched with a such small army for a campaign as we can see in another Ottoman battle articles. I talked about examples, food, logistic, money... how they build armies, and also I showed that is a tendency by some user to claim that if Ottomans lost they claim, "they not lost just went home after the picnic (make an attack and siege far from his empire) because the weather was too rainy" and if Ottomans won "Ottomans were just a small army, and the enemy was very big" mostly irreal big numbers which based by primarly sources, by propaganda writing of the Sultan. Unfortunatelly medieval Ottoman sources are not so good regarding the battles, because they are absolute silent about lost battles, the Sultan = God, and success enemy generals = Devil.

Please read DRN Rule D. If we have moderated discussion, we will proceed under these rules. Please also read the Arbitration Committee decision about Eastern Europe, because Romania is in Eastern Europe. Then please answer three questions. First, do you agree to the mediation rules? Second, is this dispute primarily about the reliability of a source? Third, if this dispute is not about a source, please state what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree to the mediation rules. The dispute is first and foremost about the claim that the Ottoman army had a size of 15,000 during the battle. Only one source has been presented backing this even after calls to bring other sources, but technically if more sources were brought we'd be discussing those too. In my case I want the claim and the source removed from the article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, what is the status of this report? Nothing has happened in two days. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Keremmaarda, see the message below. OrionNimrod was not as involved and did not even edit the article itself but I'm also pinging them just in case. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, ı agree to the mediation rules. I added the 15,000 figure by providing sources and I do not approve of its removal. I would like to leave it to other admins and editors to decide whether the source is reliable or unreliable. Keremmaarda (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with the rules, on the talk page I presented many examples, that the source is not reliable for the military history because it made by literature and language teacher not by a historian. Even the source is itself about the history of Turkish literature and culture and not the military history of the Ottoman empire. Probably that is why the army number provided here is remarkably so different than the other numbers provided by many historians as it also presented in the talk page. I agree with Super Dromaeosaurus, that source and that number is not reliable. It would be good if Keremmaarda would use modern academic sources from historians to the number of armies. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The two other editors in this discussion have made introductory statements but have not replied to my zeroth statement, in which I asked them to agree to the rules, and asked them what they wanted to change in the article (or what they wanted to leave the same that another editor wanted to change). If the other editors do not respond, I will have to close the thread as declined by the other editors. However, if the issue is the reliability of a source, any editor can post an inquiry at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

If either of the other editors are ready to participate in moderated discussion, please provide a reply here. If there is no reply, this thread will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears that the issue is whether a source stating that the Ottoman force consisted of 15,000 men is reliable. The source is in Turkish. We can ask the reliable source noticeboard for opinions on whether the source is reliable, and we are likely to be asked whether it has been translated, and whether the translation is reliable. Am I correct that the issue is about the reliability of a source in Turkish?

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have opened a thread at the Reliable Source Noticeboard concerning the disputed source. The thread is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Night_attack_at_Târgoviște. Are there any other questions concerning the content of the encyclopedia article? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Richard Kemp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tomatoesarefruit (talk · contribs)
• Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I and several other users have tried to add content to the page concerning the subject's significant role within a UK charity related to the Israel Defence Forces. This content was clearly sourced (it has more recently been cited in BBC news) and the facts are not disputed. One particular editor keeps removing these references stating that they are related to Arab Israeli conflict, and the page has now been placed under extended protection.

I believe that the proposed content is both important public information highly relevant to the subject's profile in an encyclopedia (not trivial additional detail) and that the 'arab-israeli conflict' restriction is being interpreted far too broadly in this instance. I tried making edits to reduce any direct reference to current conflict and focus solely on the subject's role in the charity, but the editor deleted all of these. S/he did not explain why the edits were unacceptable other than that they - in his/her view - relate to the arab israeli conflict and therefore I am not allowed to make such edits.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Kemp#IDF We have discussed the issue on the Talk page but, as explained above, I did not feel that Kathleensbike was willing to work productively to find a solution. S/he did not answer any of my questions about what the specific problem was, despite my proposed amendments.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please can an independent arbitrator make a decision about whether the proposed edits fall within the restricted contentious area of 'arab israeli conflict'. If they do, can you suggest a way to ensure the article includes significant information without violating any policies?

There is no dispute. Tomatoesarefruit cannot make edits relating to the Israel-Arab conflict, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4, specifically Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions which even prevents them from starting this discussion, to the best of my knowledge. Kathleen's bike (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This is precisely my point - I do not agree that the proposed edits fall within the parameter of [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions] and you will not explain why you think that they do.

To summarise again, the edits state that the subject (richard kemp) is the director and trustee of the charity UKAWIS (which is a charity working on welfare of IDF troops). I do not see how this can be considered an edit which relates to the conflict itself. If I am wrong about this that's fine but I have read all the links you sent and so far I have not been able to see anything that would encompass the proposed edits.

Secondly, if there is no dispute over the facts then instead of deleting them purely on the principle that I am not a sufficiently experienced editor, couldn't you add the edits yourself? It seems more constructive.

Note that Kemp himself has himself tweeted articles from the BBC which refer to the facts I have proposed to include - https://x.com/COLRICHARDKEMP/status/1740436880242643061?s=20.

I don't think repeatedly shutting down the conversation about the content is helpful. Tomatoesarefruit (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Napoleon (2023 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• IAmNMFlores (talk · contribs)
• PepGuardi (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On the article's head, I (IAmNMFlores) claim that Apple Original Films/Apple TV+ should be labeled as a distributor next to Columbia Pictures/Sony Pictures Releasing as it is in the infobox (and cited sources in the Release section), but the other user (PepGuardi) claims Apple is not a theatrical distributor and the sources do not prove that it distributed theatrically.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Napoleon (2023 film)#Distributors

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Explaining the validity of our evidence.

---

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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Niklaus Wirth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• رهبرمعظم (talk · contribs)
• 3MRB1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In section "Publications" regarding the book "The Pascal User Manual and Report": the book explicitly mentions Wirth as joint author of first chapter and sole author of second chapter. My edits, additional notes and any related information on this subject has been reverted by the same user multiple times. I have tried to solve this on their talk page, but it seems to be of no use.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

User_talk:3MRB1#References_for_Niklaus_Wirth

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A short guidance for the involved user should solve the issue.

---

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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Shambuka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs)
• Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs) (currently "blocked indefinitely because its owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.")
• Georgethedragonslayer (talk · contribs)
• Carleas (talk · contribs)
• Phule lulu (talk · contribs)
• Wareon (talk · contribs)
• Jasksingh (talk · contribs)
• ArvindPalaskar (talk · contribs)
• TrulyShruti (talk · contribs)
• Ratnahastin (talk · contribs)
• HollerithPunchCard (talk · contribs)
• CapnJackSp (talk · contribs)
• Pincrete (talk · contribs)
• Dympies (talk · contribs)
• Chilicave (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue about the lead sentence of Shambuka. The lead sentence has unstable and been in dispute since at least 4 years, leading to edit-warring. Current lead sentence:

Shambuka (Sanskrit: शम्बूक, IAST: śambūka) is an interpolated character, which is not found in the original Valmiki Ramayana but in the later addition called "Uttara Kanda".

The comment by Carleas (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC) in Talk:Shambuka#Scholarly_take_on_"interpolation" gives the history. The topic is discussed several times. A RFC failed to have a consensus. Quoting the remarks of User:Vanderwaalforces in the closing Rfc:

In my assessment, there is no clear consensus' for either option 1 [current version] or option 2 [(Shambuka... is a shudra ascetic ... )]. The users who support option 1 are more vocal and assertive, but they do not provide convincing evidence or arguments for why Shambuka should be defined as an interpolation in the first sentence. The users who support option 2 are more reasonable and respectful, but they do not address the controversy or the criticism of the character and the story. The users who support neither option or have other comments raise valid points and concerns, but they do not propose a specific alternative wording for the lead sentence. However, I have a suggestion, to rewrite the lead sentence in a way that encapsulates the multifaceted nature of the sources and perspectives on Shambuka, without taking a definitive position or giving undue weight to any particular view. For example, something like: "Shambuka ... is a character who appears in the Uttara Kanda, the last book of the Hindu epic Ramayana...

The "non-binding" suggestion of the Rfc was implemented and then reverted; to option 1, which is disputed - also has led to edit-warring. The DRN is opened after next course of action was discussed with User:Vanderwaalforces.

My take:

• the current lead sentence violates WP:NPOV. We need to follow MOS:FIRST, tell what is found, rather than where it is not found
• Review of scholarly literature does not define Shambuka as "interpolated character". See RFC for references.

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Shambuka#Mentioning_later_interpolation_as_an_opinion_rather_than_fact, Talk:Shambuka#Lead_changes, Talk:Shambuka#Interpolation, Talk:Shambuka#RfC

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Bring third-party opinion to arrive at amicable lead sentence that respects WP:NPOV, WP:V

I was summoned by bot to participate in the RfC created to resolve this dispute. [1] This is a years-long WP:EDITWAR, flip-flopping between competing versions of language that violates WP:NPOV in different ways. [2][3] The dispute is politically and religiously charged,[4][5] which explains the years of edit-warring and current WP:STONEWALLING.

I don't think it is a close case: describing a character first by where it is not found is bizarre and confusing and violates MOS:LEAD. The current version (Option 1 in the RfC) is not WP:NPOV, and is not supported by WP:RS. [6][7] While the votes in the RfC were balanced, the discussion is not: those supporting Option 1 have not engaged in discussion, have restated their beliefs instead of supporting them, [8][9][10] have not participated in attempt to reach a compromise, [11] and are now refusing to participate in this WP:DRN process.[12]

The best option remains reverting to the status quo ante bellum (prior to [13]), and continuing to workshop the compromise suggested in the RfC. [14]

• RfC just got closed and you want DRN now. This filing is itself full of mudslinging and a clear-cut attempt to disparage your opponents.[15] I am not interested in participating in this spurious bad faith filing. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I was briefly involved in these discussions. Like many others, I am not an expert nor knowledgeable in this interesting subject. That said, from the perspective of a reader unacquainted with this topic, the suggestion in the RFC closing:

'"to rewrite the lead sentence in a way that encapsulates the multifaceted nature of the sources and perspectives on Shambuka, without taking a definitive position or giving undue weight to any particular view. For example, something like: "Shambuka ... is a character who appears in the Uttara Kanda, the last book of the Hindu epic Ramayana..." makes sense.

In my view, it is more informative, accessible, and objective, to open with a description of who this person is and where he was described, before introducing the controversies, such as whether he is fictional, and the authenticity and credibility of the works introducing him.

Starting the article with niche words like "interpolated character", "not found in the original Valmiki Ramayana but in the later addition called "Uttara Kanda", assumes a degree of prior knowledge of the interpolation dispute, and the relevant literary works, that is not necessarily informative or helpful to readers unfamiliar with this subject.

Beginning an introduction of the subject with an introduction of its controversy also undermines the appearance of neutrality.

If I am missing anything or erred in any way, please let me know. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I am solely an RfC responder, with no specialised 'local' knowledge. On stylistic grounds, at the RfC, I endorsed the argument that the article should open with saying who this character was and in which texts they appeared rather than saying what they weren't (which is what 'interpolated' seeks to imply to my mind). The word is also PoV-ishly redundant if we record which versions the character appears in and doesn't appear in (as we do, though not very clearly or efficiently at present). To a general English-speaking readership, such as WP's, this logic would certainly be most hekpful and should apply unless there was near-universal agreement among sources that the character was 'interpolated'. I was not persuaded by any sources presented at the RfC that this threshold was met. I am not able to contribute much to this discussion, as my knowledge is limited to the evidence presented at the RfC.Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• La Salida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• WMrapids (talk · contribs)
• NoonIcarus (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Multiple academic, media and NGO sources say that the goal of the La Salida campaign was to remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro from office. The other user has prevented this information from being present in the article for over a month. In an attempt to avoid edit warring, more sources were provided over the period of time, though those sources were continuously dismissed by the said user.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:La_Salida#The_goal_was_to_remove_Maduro

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Having additional users help decide on whether inclusion of the goal to remove President Nicolás Maduro is appropriate or not.

This request was previously filed on 2 December and virtually nothing as changed, so I'll copy the statement that I provided then:

The article's dispute boils down to the wording in the lead about the movement's goal. The original wording was a quote translated from the Spanish version: "whose objective was to 'find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro'". WMrapids preferred version is "in an effort to remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro from office" or variations thereof.
Proposals have included "in an effort to end to the Bolivarian Revolution prevalent since 1998", "in an effort to seek [Venezuelan president Nicolás] Maduro's resignation", or simply avoiding stating the goal altogether. The proposals have not been satisfactory to WMrapids for the moment.

--NoonIcarus (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I am ready to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. It appears that the issue is about the wording of the party's goal. The policy that is critical is verifiability. The best wording is probably the wording that is the best translation of the party's own statement in Spanish of its goal. Will each editor state what they think that the English article should say, and any alternatives that they think are acceptable? Will each editor please also explain why think that their version is preferred, and what is wrong with any other versions? Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The best wording of La Salida's goals should include what third party, reliable sources detail, which is that the campaign was to remove Maduro from office. Those leading La Patilla also stated that Maduro's removal was their goal. Whether various methods were used to achieve this goal is not related to the main objective of the campaign.--WMrapids (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the issue appears to be verifiability of the statement of purpose, please provide the exact wording that you want to use to state what the goal of the party was, and please provide a footnote to a statement in Spanish.

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

In the introduction of La Salida, the first sentence in the introduction should read "La Salida (lit. 'The Exit') was a Venezuelan opposition political campaign launched on 23 January 2014 that was based on civil disobedience in an effort remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro." No sources say anything about the objective being to end the Bolivarian Revolution (which is included in the current edit) but many do say that the goal was to remove President Maduro (some sources can be seen in this edit).

One main La Salida leader, María Corina Machado, explains "La Salida" in this video from 23 January 2014:

• "A popular rebellion occurred in Venezuela on 23 January where citizens in the street decided to take that generation's destiny into their hands. Today, the spirit of 23 January is alive in us and just as that generation of 23 January 1958 did its task, us Venezuelans of our generation will do and are doing ours. ... in these hours we call on all Venezuelans to assume this historical responsibility of conquering democracy and freedom and that is why we do it by calling the people of Venezuela to the meeting space in that we are one in the streets of the country. ... In these hours, we call on citizens from all sectors of society ... to achieve that route and that exit has to be assumed by the people of Venezuela"
• The video's description from Machado says the speech was to call "on Venezuelans to debate in the streets what 'the exit' of the regime should be like, always taking into account constitutional mandates and democratic principles."

Another main La Salida leader, Leopoldo López, made various statements about "La Salida" (The Exit):

• "we're on the right side of history. We're on the right side of justice. We're on the right side of truth. ... Our cause must be la salida (the exit) of this government (from power)"
• "Maduro, your dictatorship is the most repressive in our history, but you will not be able to maintain power by repressing everyone, all the time. Today I confirm: THE STREET IS THE EXIT. Let's continue organizing it and massing it" ("Maduro, tu dictadura es la más represiva de nuestra historia, pero no podrás mantener el poder reprimiendo a todo el mundo, todo el tiempo. Hoy les ratifico: LA CALLE ES LA SALIDA. Sigamos organizándola y masificándola.")
• During the same 23 January 2014 event as Machado, López said: "Venezuela needs a change. We have to move towards a change in the system, not just a change in government, a change in model. Today on 23 January, every 23 January we celebrate something that today we want to retrace. The essence of the rebellion of the people."

While we can see that the opposition leaders themselves promoted La Salida as a way to remove Maduro's government, we should take the words of reliable secondary sources before we should accept the political statements of opposition leaders.--WMrapids (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Only one editor has been taking part in this discussion, so I may have to close this thread. However, I will first asl User:WMrapids to Be Specific at DRN.

Please provide the exact wording that you want to use to state what the goal of the party was, and please provide a footnote to a statement in Spanish. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I believe I did provide the exact wording above by saying In the introduction of La Salida, the first sentence in the introduction should read "La Salida (lit. 'The Exit') was a Venezuelan opposition political campaign launched on 23 January 2014 that was based on civil disobedience in an effort remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro." Also, there were statements provided above that were translated from Spanish, but I'm not sure how you would want the format of the footnote. This is my first time using DRN, so apologies for any informalities. I'm trying my best to participate in calm editing and avoid edit warring by using this noticeboard, so I appreciate your moderation. WMrapids (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Kind regards. To respond to all the questions: sources that include the original phrasing ("find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro") include:[16][17][18][19], as well as Javier Moro's book Nos Quieren Muertos (2023, ISBN 9788467069778). I should note that neutrality should also be considered: while all sources apparently agree on the substance, some of the references use loaded language such as "oust".

I'd be more than happy to agree on a solution that meets both verifiability and neutrality, as well as to know if WMrapids has a different proposal. I guess that the article can always go back to the original wording, which is the same one that is used in Spanish, but it preferrably should be one WMrapids agrees with too. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Is the disagreement about the first sentence? Is there any other disagreement?

It appears that one editor wants the first sentence to say:

La Salida (lit. 'The Exit') was a Venezuelan opposition political campaign launched on 23 January 2014 that was based on civil disobedience in an effort remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro.

It appears that the other editor wants the first sentence to include the phrase:

find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro

Are those correct statements of what the editors want? Will each editor please state why they do not want to accept the other editor's proposal? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The sentence saying "find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro" is weasely and is political speak. In fact, the initial edit upon creation of the article included this direct quote unattributed, which was inappropriate.

The wording "La Salida (lit. 'The Exit') was a Venezuelan opposition political campaign launched on 23 January 2014 that was based on civil disobedience in an effort remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro" is much more succinct and supported by a multitude of reliable, third party sources. No matter any source's bias or wording, they agree on the La Salida's objective to remove Maduro. Also, saying that the campaign wanted to remove Maduro is neutral; no one is saying that the removal would be unconstitutional or through malice.--WMrapids (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: @Robert McClenon: Indeed, the disagreement is over the first sentence. As far as I know, there aren't any other disagreements (besides the current excessive inline tag in the lead).

A more accurate description of the dispute might be that WMrapids wants to include "remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro", while I don't. I don't oppose other alternative phrasings.

The main reason that I have argued is that this not conveys the description accurately. La Salida was supposed to be a peaceful campaign (at least in theory), while "remove" can reflect violent means. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

One editor disagrees with the language to "remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro" because that could mean by non-violent means or violent means. Could the verb be qualified, as in "remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro non-violently" or something similar?

Is the earlier wording of whose objective was to 'find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro a good translation of the Spanish original? Why shouldn't a translation of the Spanish be used?

The critical policy is verifiability. Is there a reason why we shouldn't simply translate the Spanish? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if it's appropriate to jump into this discussion. But I agree, a direct translation of the Spanish: encontrar una salida pacífica, democrática y constitucional al gobierno de Nicolás Maduro -- seems to be the most neutral.

Unless user @WMrapids can provide a direct quoted statement in Spanish from a news source that has the word "removal" (or variation of) in it -- otherwise "removal of" is inferred intent and not neutral. Slacker13 (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

As previously stated, the wording "find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro" is a direct quote from the opposition, which is both weasely and political speak. The use of adverbs to describe the situation is best to avoid per MOS:EDITORIAL, so any suggestions of "constitutionally remove", "peacefully remove" or similar suggestions are inappropriate. MOS:EDITORIAL also makes NoonIcarus' proposal inappropriate due to its use of multiple adjectives and descriptors.

If we are going to delve into the semantics of individual words, here are various definitions for "remove":

• Merriam-Webster: "to change the location, position, station, or residence of"
• Cambridge Dictionary "to take something or someone away from somewhere, or off something"
• Oxford English Dictionary: "take (something) away or off from the position occupied"

So, using the word "remove" would be an accurate and neutral way to say that La Salida attempted:

• Merriam-Webster: "to .. change the ... position" of Maduro
• Cambridge Dictionary: "to take [Maduro] ... away from" office
• Oxford English Dictionary: "to take [Maduro] away ... from the position occupied"

I still support the inclusion of "in an effort to remove Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro from office" since the definition meanings listed above do not include anything that is overtly POV.--WMrapids (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: @Robert McClenon: I believe adding "non-violently" to the wording to the lead would solve the issue and I see it as an acceptable solution.

The original wording in Spanish is "encontrar una salida pacífica, democrática y constitucional al gobierno de Nicolás Maduro". As a native Spanish speaker, I can say this is an accurate translation. As I mentioned, this could be the "simplest" solution, but said solution should preferrably be acceptable to WMrapids too.

I'm looking forward to know what they think of the proposal (adding "non-violently" in the lead). --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• General Collective Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (now Draft:General Collective Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs))

Users involved

• CognitiveMMA (talk · contribs)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am bringing this issue to dispute resolution because I believe there has been a misunderstanding regarding my contributions to the Wikipedia article on "General Collective Intelligence." My main argument is that as an expert in this field, my inclusion of peer-reviewed research is essential for the article's accuracy and completeness. I am not motivated by self-promotion but by a desire to share important ideas about nature's collective intelligence, which I believe can significantly contribute to global challenges such as poverty and climate change. I contend that my actions do not constitute a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's guidelines allow for the citation of one's work when it is relevant and peer-reviewed, which is the case here. Additionally, my article was moved to draft without clear guidance for improvement, which I find unhelpful and counterproductive. I am seeking a fair and informed review process through this dispute resolution. I believe that Wikipedia is a platform for spreading ideas, especially those supported by academic research, and including such content does not violate Wikipedia's policy against original research. My intention is to engage in a constructive dialogue to resolve this matter in accordance with Wikipedia's standards and practices.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

User talk:CognitiveMMA#October 2021

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

To resolve this dispute, an impartial review of my contributions by a panel of experienced Wikipedia editors would be helpful. If possible, this panel might include experts in the field of collective intelligence, to ensure that the content is evaluated both for adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines and for its academic validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CognitiveMMA (talk • contribs) 05:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

 Note:The filing editor does not appear to have notified MrOllie on their user talkpage. This dispute appears to be about wether the filer has a conflict of interest, and about wether what is currently at Draft:General Collective Intelligence is siutable for mainspace. Questions about wether a specific editor has a conflict of interest can be adressed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Looking through the archives, disputes about wether a (declined / pushed back from mainspace) draft is siutable for mainspace don't appear to be a good fit for this noticeboard. Assuming the answer to the conflict of interest question is "no conflict of interest" the main way to object a unliteral draftification would be to move it back, but submitting it to AfC is also possible. If the answer to the conflict of interest question is that there is a conflict of interest, objecting to the draftification means to submit the Draft to AfC. If the draft is submitted to AfC and declined (which a since G13'd version of this draft appears to have been) or rejected, that can be discussed at the Teahouse or the AfC help desk. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC) wordling, linked G13 at Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Template:Politics of Armenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• UA0Volodymyr (talk · contribs)
• Archives908 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I proposed to remove the ugly and useless section on international organizations from the template.

Basically, this section duplicates the Foreign relations section. Article on Armenian CoE membership, as well as articles of international relationship with others organizations, is already in that section, and CIS is also more optimal to be moved to this section, like it's done in the Template:Politics of Ukraine.

The user rejects my changes and refers to the lack of consensus and policies forbidding having this section. I think these are not enough reasons for having this useless and senseless section.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Template talk:Politics of Armenia#International organizations

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Assess the feasibility of this section and my proposals, find an optimal variation of listing the international organizations in the template.

Not sure exactly why a dispute was opened, as there is an ongoing discussion on the template talk page. Last message I sent today was to seek clarification from the user regarding what exactly they are proposing to improve the template as it has not been very clear thus far. Admins, please note that UA0Volodymyr was recently unblocked from an indef ban due to disruptive behavior and an unwillingness to co-operate with others (see: AE discussion). Ymblanter reported the user for disruptive editing and UA0Volodymyr was subsequently blocked by HJ Mitchell. There was also an ANI for edit warring (see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#Edit warring - UA0Volodymyr). The ban was lifted on 10 January 2024 by Red-tailed hawk, with conditions (topic ban and one-revert restriction). The user has already reinstated their preferred version of the template after being reverted and prior to establishing consensus (see: [20]). Regards, Archives908 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I have two questions for the editors. The first question is whether you are requesting moderated discussion in accordance with DRN Rule D. 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. If you want moderated discussion, please also read the Armenia-Azerbaijan finding.

An editor who does want moderated discussion of content should answer the second question. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the template. So please state concisely what part of the template you want to change (or what you want left the same that another editor wants to change). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Robert McClenon, it is much appreciated. I have been trying since October 2023 to understand exactly what UA0Volodymyr is seeking to achieve in the template. They insist that they have "improvements to make", yet it is challenging to know what exactly they seek to accomplish as they have not provided a clear X to Y proposal. Out of GF, I'm still open to understand their end-goals with the template, as is evident from my last message in the template talk page discussion. However, the editing tactics of UA0Volodymyr raise concern. I know this discussion is supposed to focus strictly on content; but, I am now debating opening an ANI. UA0Volodymyr is under a strict one-revert restriction, yet they have already restored content which has been reverted (see: [21]) just one day after their indef ban was lifted. I am not sure how best to proceed at this point, in the interim, perhaps UA0Volodymyr can present their proposal for the template in a clear X to Y format? Regards, Archives908 (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I decline my proposals. Do with this template whatever you want. I don't want to participate in these discusses anymore. Thanks. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Playboi Carti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• EphemeralPerpetuals (talk · contribs)
• Moem-Meom (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Rapper Playboi Carti's birth date has been brought into question following the release of his track H00dByAir and the release of footage of an arrest in 2022. Consensus has not been reached, and editing has gone back and forth between the dates 1995 and 1996 for weeks without solid conversation. The majority of reliable sources state his birth date as 1996, but more questionable ones - such as footage of his arrest and a leaked driver's license state it is 1995.

Note: It's difficult to specifically note more than one person as the majority of edits have been done by anonymous accounts - the dispute is not one that can be easily pinned down.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Playboi_Carti#Consensus_on_Carti's_birth_year Talk:Playboi_Carti#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_10_January_2024_(2) User_talk:RXLFZ#Playboi_Carti_birth_year_dispute

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'd like an outside opinion to review the dispute and provide perspective - ideally so that a consensus can be met. I'm still a relatively new user, and I'm unsure exactly how to proceed, so if this isn't the right location to request help with this matter then please redirect me.

• Volunteer Note - The Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard is probably the right forum for this issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll take it over there. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)^talk 00:38, 15 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Single-domain antibody (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pmartiniberthon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hello, I am the attorney of the owner of the trademarks NANOBODY and NANOBODIES. I have amended the publication to add the TM sign next to my client's trademarks to avoid its cancellation. I have been requested to establish evidence of my client's rights, which I have. Yet, I am still denied to change the page accordingly. In addition, please be advised that article L. 713-3-4 of French Intellectual Property Code dictates that : "When the reproduction of a trademark in a dictionary, encyclopedia or similar reference work, in printed or electronic form, gives the impression that it constitutes the generic term designating the goods or services for which it is registered, and the trademark owner so requests, the publisher shall indicate without delay and at the latest at the time of the next edition if the work is printed, that it is a registered trademark." My Client is simply trying to indicate that these terms are registered trademarks.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pmartiniberthon

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By allowing me to add the TM sign next to the terms nanobody and nanobodies

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks says Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context. It is pretty clear that Wikipedia does not use the ™ symbol in cases like this. Cullen328 (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Per the above, we don't use trademark registration symbols for Coca-Cola or Google. Wikipedia's non-use of trademark registration symbols has no bearing on the legal status of such marks. BD2412 T 03:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that a Google Scholar search for academic papers using the term "nanobody" shows that the vast majority of these papers do not use the ™ or ® symbols. Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Even so, our clearest path may be to just eliminate all reference to "Nanobody" from the article, and use "sdAb" instead. BD2412 T 03:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. In my view, we need to use the terminology widely used by reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If a single company owns a trademark on the name for their product, then every time we use the name, symbol or not, we are effectively promoting their product — no differently than if we used "Tylenol" rather than paracetamol throughout that article. BD2412 T 04:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Pmartiniberthon for making legal threats. Cullen328 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that this review article Nanobodies: A Review of Generation, Diagnostics and Therapeutics, published by the National Institutes of Health, an agency of the US federal government, does not use the ™ or ® symbols. Cullen328 (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:MOSTM tells us not to use the ™ and ® symbols but it doesn't prevent stating that a certain term is trademarked by some company. For examples, see our articles on Rolex and Coca-Cola. Whether to make a statement in the article text about something being a trademark might depend on importance and would require consensus of editors. It is unpleasant to think that lawyers might be patrolling our pages insisting on recognition of trademarks. Basically we don't care and we don't see ourselves as promoting one terminology for referring to a certain product and not another. We use whatever is most likely to be recognized and understood by the reader. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Sensitivity analysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Saltean (talk · contribs)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This concerns a series of edit made last September 2023 by User:MrOllie and relative to a several different pages, see User_talk:MrOllie#Your_edits_of_last_September where all references to my own work have been removed.

My case is that in two particular two pages Sensitivity auditing and Sensitivity analysis my own references are instead needed. In one case the references eliminated correspond to the most quoted articles in the respective discipline of sensitivity analysis (see detailed list in Talk:Sensitivity analysis). In the other case I am simply the creator of the method, please see Talk:Sensitivity auditing. I agree that COI needs to be avoided. I agree that I quoted excessively my own papers, lesson learned, and I can live with the elisions in the other pages. I ask no action there. Now I can use the edit COI template to gently reinsert at least the essential references at the two pages mentioned, but would like to note that editors such as User:MrOllie could use some restraint and especially address the authors of Wikipedia with courtesy. I noted User:MrOllie's hostile and confrontational tone with practically all authors, and even outside Wikipedia there have been complaints. I am not saying that User:MrOllie is wrong – most likely User:MrOllie is mostly right in the pertinent domains but being right gives no licence to be brusque. User:MrOllie should consider the possibility that some author is also right in his/her subject domain. Since User:MrOllie is a seasoned editor (as I am a seasoned author) I doubt this complaint of mine will make any difference, but still, it pains me that we cannot work in Wikipedia in a spirit of cooperation instead of one of aggressive confrontation – though, let it be clear, I met scores of polite and collaborative editors in Wikipedia who corrected and still correct me constructively.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

See

Talk:Sensitivity analysis

Talk:Sensitivity auditing

User_talk:MrOllie#Your_edits_of_last_September

Talk:Quantitative storytelling

Talk:Ethics of quantification

User_talk:Saltean#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Talking to User:MrOllie would be a good starting point.

---

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.

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.

---

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

• Ilike2burnthing (talk · contribs)
• Byte-ul (talk · contribs)

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?

Talk:Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations_of_Russian_government_ties#Resolve_claim_of_malicious_changes/vandalism

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.

Kaspersky was labeled as malicious by the European Parliament as the result of an amendment added by Anna Elżbieta Fotyga^[3] that has been debated and voted for. The European Commission had nothing to do with it and it is irrelevant whether the European Commission is in possession of any evidence.

The sources you cited were literally copy-pasted from Gerolf Annemans' inquiry to the European Commission, the second, third and fourth sources being included into the first one. ^[4][5]

1. Old and irrelevant sources (+ citation overkill)
   1. The german BSI is actually warning against the usage of Kaspersky software ^[6]. Not relevant to the European Parliament malicious designation anyway, but it shows that you have just copy pasted those links without doing your due diligence.
   2. There is no discussion in the senat.fr article about having evidence against Kaspersky or not. Kaspersky is only described as intrusive. Not relevant to the European Parliament malicious designation anyway.
   3. There is no source for the belgian Cybersecurity Center claims, nor any link pointing to the institution's analysis. Not relevant to the European Parliament malicious designation anyway.
2. You kept writing in the Talk section about unrelated topics and disputes you had outside Wikipedia (you're doing this here as well), you edited the page using fake information with the sole purpose of winning an argument you had elsewhere.
3. You doxed my user information from other boards, continuous harassment and personal attacks here and outside of Wikipedia.

Byte-ul (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• John de Lancie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• EpicTiger87 (talk · contribs)
• FlightTime (talk · contribs)
• Meters (talk · contribs)
• Daniel Case (talk · contribs)
• Dennis Brown (talk · contribs)
• Sergecross73 (talk · contribs)
• City of Silver (talk · contribs)
• Leon Nalle (talk · contribs)
• Slacker13 (talk · contribs)
• VQuakr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There was a previous dispute over my proposed edit on the John de Lancie page, where I argued that his role as Discord should be moved to the top of the lede alongside his Q role. With the previous discussion on that matter (including a previous discussion on this board), a consensus formed against me and good arguments were risen against my points. So I concede that I was in the minority on that proposed edit and have dropped that. However, a new edit I have proposed is significantly different from my old proposed one (it no longer claims that the Discord role is as popular as the Q role and doesn't move it to the top of the lede, the new edit simply succinctly mentions he is a voice actor, and that his Discord role is directly inspired by his most popular role) and only one user has objected to it so far (making it a 1 vs. 1 issue rather than something that has any consensus in either direction), so I am interested if seeing if any other users agree or disagree with it. So far only one other editor (Meters) has stated their opinion on it. None of the other users who were involved with the discussion on my previous edit have given any opinions on my new proposed edit after days, and Meter has not responded to my long response to them. Since it has been days with no progress toward developing a consensus, I am making this request so that a discussion can take place on this edit, among the same group of people who opposed my previous edit plus any other interested parties. Below I link to the most recent talk page discussion where they can read over my argument I gave in favor of the new edit, where I explained why it lacks the issues of the previous edit and does help improve the lede of the article. If a consensus develops against this edit, I will be willing to concede like I did with the previous one. But since no consensus has developed on the talk page beyond a 1 vs. 1 dispute, I think this request is worth it in order to develop a consensus. Thank you.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Discussions over my old proposed edit (for background info): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_de_Lancie#Roles_mentioned_in_first_paragraph:_Q/Discord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_240#John_de_Lancie

Recent Discussion over new proposed edit (directly relevant to this discussion): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_de_Lancie#New_Edit_Proposal_for_Discord_Mention_in_the_Lede

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It will be useful to have this forum where the editors who were involved with my previous edit can now express their views on my new proposed edit, so that we can get to a consensus on this matter just as with the last one. I look forward to a discussion on my new proposed edit. If you oppose this edit too, I would be happy to hear proposals for alternate edits or ideas on how to otherwise improve the article.

It is a fairly established consensus that the information doesn't belong in the lede. We shouldn't have to debate this weekly. This isn't a topic ripe for this board because the editor is simply trying to take a second bite of the apple, yet again, and wear the other editors down. In fact, continuing to beat this dead horse is now beginning to resemble a violation of WP:DE / WP:TE and is putting them at risk of sanction. Dennis Brown 2¢ 01:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had any stance on this series of disputes about this article's lead, I merely stumbled upon it by chance, and I've just tried to guide the discussion a bit since it didn't seem like some parties were really articulating their stances very clearly. The general situation is, one editor is generally trying to increase the perceived importance/prevalence of a certain role of this actor in question, while it seems like most other editors tend to disagree. It's true that the most recent proposed change is technically different than prior ones, but it's still similar in spirit. If it were me, I'd probably chose WP:RFC over WP:DRN if I wanted to pursue this. But I wouldn't want to pursue this - it's a relatively trivial situation. I'd move on to other more important editing. Sergecross73 msg me 00:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The dispute overview is not accurate. A review of the totality of the interactions on this subject makes is clear there is consensus already: consensus not to expand this aspect of the subject in the lead section. This is also not a 1v1 dispute, as evidenced by [22], [23], [24]. I believe the advice at WP:LISTEN is relevant. DR is unlikely to be helpful in this case because clear consensus has already developed. VQuakr (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Of the 3 examples VQuakr gave to show that there was already a consensus against me, the revert from them specifically had the summary "let's get consensus before expanding on Discord coverage, please and thank you" which I interpreted as being a neutral statement on the edit. Same for the Sergecross statement they linked, which said that they perceived that the community was against me, rather than agreeing or disagreeing with my given point (they made it a point to say they had no stake in the argument). So the only person of the 3 who stated an argument against my edit was Meters (and I would be happy to hear their response to my response against their argument, as their argument on sources is one that multiple editors in this discussion have stated they disagree with). So while there is clearly consensus against my old edit, there is not a consensus yet on this new edit. With VQuakr saying they also oppose my edit, it is still only 2 against and 1 for. I would be happy to hear their reasoning for opposing my new edit. EpicTiger87 (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Dennis Brown's summary is incorrect. The Discord role is already in the lede and there is no consensus against having it there, the only consensus established was against moving it to the first paragraph of the lede and claiming it is his most well known role alongside Q. The new edit does not do the things that there are a consensus against. I would appreciate actual discussion on my new edit rather than claiming that the consensus against my categorically different old edit somehow translates over automatically. EpicTiger87 (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

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

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.

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)

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)

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 [25], 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)

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)

1. I agree to either [DRN Rule A] or [DRN Rule B], but I would prefer [DRN Rule B].
2. I am willing to discuss the content of the color-table [26], and the images in the article.
3. 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 [27] 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 [28], here [29] and in the last three posts of this thread [30]. 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 [31]. 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)

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)

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 [32], 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 [33]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Z80Spectrum - you should have read the comments I made in the Archive Settings section of the talk page. This is in fact the third time I've had to explain this, but the archiving was inactive because I noted the exact same concerns you had: I was going to add archiving to this talk page, but I realised that if I did it would archive most of Z80Spectrum's remaining comments, and as I don't want to be accused of having ulterior motives, I'll wait until the discussion has run it's course. I've added <nowiki></nowiki> tags that can just be removed when done. As an outright question - do you understand what I'm saying? Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional - I am not willing to agree to archiving as a compromise for the same reasons I stated I was against it before on my talk page: [R]everting and archiving really means that you get your way, as you're asking that your disputed content is not only restored but then archived where it can't be removed, challenged or edited at any point in the future - archiving is not a compromise but an outright win for Z80 Spectrum, and doesn't address the issue of further edits in a similar vein he may make, or continuation of this same topic. This is my point (and again one brought up by 5 other editors) that this is Original Research material and is inappropriate, be it article or talk page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Moderator, I am ready to answer your next question. Z80Spectrum (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Ram Mandir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Thewikizoomer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is about the lead section of article:Ram Mandir.

It was previously discussed on the article's talk page on whether to include about Babar Masjid episode in the lead section or not, however, no consensus was reached. The said episode is about the history of the temple and it can be mentioned in the history as it is part of the history. Few users wish to include that in the lead section. I don't think that content of such size and face should be in article's lead as it may misguide readers. It can be mentioned in the lead and can be added in history in detail.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ram_Mandir#:~:text=Lead%5Bedit,ignored%20(help), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ram_Mandir#:~:text=Brief%20mention%20of%20the%20critique%20in%20the%20lede,Evidence%27%22.%20Retrieved%20January%2021%2C%202024.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The matter can be observed from a third person's perspective and carefully be reviewed. The whole article should be understood, most importantly its history and the contentious nature it has and then it can be decided on whether that content can be left in lead section or it can be mentioned in history. This dispute resolution will also clear any future disputes that may arise on the same issue, because as of now there is no proper consensus.

---

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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• RPL (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Matthiaspaul (talk · contribs)
• Jdbtwo (talk · contribs)

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.

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)

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. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Do the editors want to try moderated discussion? Please read DRN Rule A, and answer whether you agree to moderated discussion.

I guess we can engage in a moderated discussion, although I'm not too clear on what that is since this is my first dispute resolution request.

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.

I'm pretty sure other issues will turn up in the future with the evolution of the article, but for now the only issue is the claim that RPL is object oriented or even "object-based" or "partially object oriented." What I want to leave the same is the absence of the "partially object-oriented" paradigm in the main RPL infobox.

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?

I could find *no* reliable sources such as you list that support the "object oriented" or even "partially object-oriented" claim.

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.

The sources cited by the opposing editor are in an even lower class of reliability than in your definition of what amounts to synthesis amounting to original research. The sources are essentially quotes from forum posts or programming manuals where the author of said posts or manuals just says in passing that RPL is "object oriented" *without providing any convincing or verifiable proof that RPL is object oriented*.

Here is what is being referenced in the citations :

In this chapter we have covered a number of relatively simple programming examples that include the basic ideas of sequential, branching, and looping programs. This type of programming in which the programmer is controlling the program flow at an elementary level is called procedural programming. In the last decade or so, there has been an emphasis in the development and use of object-oriented programming. In this approach the user takes advantage of pre-programmed functions (objects) for which he or she provides the appropriate input, and from which he or she receives a pre-specified type of output. Most of the functions provided by the HP 49 G calculator emphasize object-oriented programming (OOP). For example, to solve a quadratic equation in the HP 49 G calculator, you need to enter a quadratic expression, the variable to solve for, and then use the function QUAD. The user is not concerned with the details of how the roots of the equation were calculated. All that he or she cares about is that the proper type of input is provided to the function or object, and that the calculator will return the desired output.

— Gilberto E. Urroz, Programming the HP 49 G Calculator in User RPL Language, https://web.archive.org/web/20221031143355/https://h30434.www3.hp.com/psg/attachments/psg/palm-webossoftware/252122/1/hp49g04.pdf ( 2000 )

The author of the above quote uses the term "object oriented" *in no other place in the manual* and his definition of "object oriented" is incorrect. Furthermore, the author provides *no substantive or reliable explanation of why RPL meets the OO criteria.*

In the second reference -- [34] -- there is no reliable explanation or evidence that RPL is OO other than the numerous references to the word "object" in the context of RPL.

In the third, and final, reference, the author just states :

On the other hand, RPL is a full-fledged, complicated, object-oriented language, which requires the user to deal with the vagaries and complications necessarily associated with such an OOP language, thus negating all simplicity and requiring its users to become what they'd rather not.

— Valentin Albillo

Again, this is just a forum post where the author mentions that RPL is OO in passing, again without providing an explanation of why this is so.

When I removed the "partially object-oriented" paradigm from the RPL main infobox, the opposing editor just reverted the edit, and re-included the same sources which, at least in my opinion, do not reliably show that RPL is in any way OO.

It seems to me that the opposing editor is just cherry-picking for any sources which might contain "object" or "object oriented" mentioned in the same document as the term "RPL".

I think there'd be no contention if William C. Wickes' original journal article on RPL ( [35] ) had used the term "structure" instead of "object." Jdbtwo (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

One editor wrote:

I guess we can engage in a moderated discussion, although I'm not too clear on what that is since this is my first dispute resolution request.

Moderated discussion means that a moderator (me) directs the discussion by asking questions that the other editors answer. This is moderated discussion.

If a reliable source is not found saying that RPL is an object-oriented language or a partially object-oriented language, this case will be closed as resolved with the conclusion that the language should not be described as object-oriented. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Moderated discussion means that a moderator (me) directs the discussion by asking questions that the other editors answer. This is moderated discussion.

Thanks for clearing that up. The only problem I see is that the editor on the other side of the dispute ( Matthiaspaul (talk · contribs) ) has not currently participated in the discussion here, only on the RPL talk page before this request for dispute resolution was opened. What if he never participates? Is there a decision made by "default"?

If a reliable source is not found saying that RPL is an object-oriented language or a partially object-oriented language, this case will be closed as resolved with the conclusion that the language should not be described as object-oriented

I can tell you now that I've done extensive research and searching and I can find no such sources. But, I really need the other editor to participate to either acknowledge or dispute what I've ( not ) found.

Jdbtwo (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Irish Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jonathan f1 (talk · contribs)
• Bastun (talk · contribs)
• The Banner (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On the "Irish Americans" (IAs) article I've raised two issues. First, that the description in the lead does not cover the scope of the article: the article is dealing with IA immigrants and contemporary Americans who descend from Irish immigrants (over a span of ~4 centuries), and not merely the "ethnic Irish". I've been trying to articulate the distinction between an "ancestry" and an "ethnicity" but that hasn't worked out too well.

Another issue I've raised pertains to the sections on "discrimination" and "stereotypes", which are currently one-sided, missing a great deal of important historical context, and in one place misrepresents the source cited. I intend to expand on the points I've already raised on the talk page with links to the relevant scholarship.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[[36]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I had hoped to reach a compromise on the lead description and to collaborate with other editors to improve the "discrimination" section, but unfortunately my talk contributions have been met with little more than dismissive comments, tone policing, and a strange remark about how the encyclopedia needs to be "protected from my opinions". I am hoping to use this opportunity to generate a more productive dialogue, one focused on content and sources and not my "attitude" or editing behavior 3 years ago.

---

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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Ottoman Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• OrionNimrod (talk · contribs)
• DeCausa (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An independent country with long history/same land, Kingdom of Hungary (Hungarian capital, Hungarian founded, populated cities, lands) was invaded (after centuries long withstand) and occupied by a foreign far country, Ottoman Empire (and making many bloodshed, crimes, enslaving Hungarians, robbing Hungarian children to became Ottoman soldiers). When Hungarian lands and Hungarian population became again part of the Kingdom Hungary pushing out the invader foreign Ottoman army that event called official "Liberation of Hungary" by Hungarian historiography. Do the modern reliable academic sources does not matter in Wiki? Just one example: USA gov website: [37] The medieval Kingdom of Hungary was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1526 and was liberated by the Austrian Empire in 1699. DeCausa says that "liberated" word is not allowed on Wiki (because NPOV), however I see many examples after fast research, even article and topic titles have "liberation":

• Liberation of France in France was liberated, and even Paris was liberated on 25 August 1944. As the liberation progressed,
• Ottoman Serbia "with the Serbs under Karageorge defeating the Turks in several battles, liberating most of Central Serbia."
• Greek War of Independence "to achieve liberation from Turkish rule" "first Greek Constitution and appointed the members of an executive and a legislative body that were to govern the liberated territories"
• Liberation of Bulgaria "the liberation of Bulgaria refers to those events of the Tenth Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)" "he 1878 declaration, which signified Bulgaria's break with the Ottoman rule, was actually the second liberation of Bulgaria."
• Liberation of Serbia, Albania and Montenegro (1918) "Allied Army of the Orient liberated these three countries from occupation by the Central Powers."
• Warsaw Uprising "Polish underground resistance to liberate Warsaw from German occupation" "the invading forces of the Western Allies as they liberated Europe from

I do not understand why "liberation" word would be not neutral in this case, that land in Hungary which was occupied by Ottomans is not debated between 2 parties (like many other lands where I agree we should use neutral term). For example Paris belongs to France clearly, so that is not a German land, if Germany occupied and if the Germans were expelled then it means that land was liberated, that is fact, not just a POV. Perhaps Germany was occupied if Paris was reconquested? No, because the original French land was reconquested = liberated from the enemy occupation. As we can see many Wiki articles use that term as standard, and nobody think that usage violate that NPOV rule in those case. Here, 3 different countries were under Ottoman occupation: Liberation of Bulgaria, Ottoman Serbia, Greek War of Independence, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece was occupied by Ottomans as Hungary, and all articles use "they were liberated from the Ottomans" those are exactly same as in the case with Ottoman Hungary.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ottoman_Hungary

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I do not understand the massive double standard, that every other country could call "liberation" in an article if the Ottoman or Nazi invaders were expelled, but using exactly the same term for the same Hungarian event is not allowed as DeCausa said. (Or do I have right to remove the liberation word in the other articles based on the rule what Decause mentioned? I would be curious what other user would say in those articles if I would do that as Decause did in this case, I bet it would be a resistance)

There has so far only been a statement by one editor. Moderated discussion at DRN is voluntary, and if an editor does not respond, they are viewed as having declined to participate.

Please read WP:DRN Rule D before commenting further. If there is moderated discussion, it will be in accordance with this rule, and will be subject to the ArbCom decision on Eastern Europe. Hungary is a contentious topic area because Hungary, like the rest of Eastern Europe, is subject to battleground editing because it has been historically the battleground between its native Western culture and invasions, e.g., from the Ottoman Empire and the Soviet Union.

Whether we have moderated discussion will depend on whether User:DeCausa responds. However, I have two comments. First, User:OrionNimrod is reminded not to use DRN as a soapbox. It isn't necessary to describe great wrongs that were committed in the sixteenth century. Second, whether the end of Ottoman rule of Hungary is described as a liberation should depend on whether reliable sources describe it as liberation. To make our own judgment as to whether it was liberation is to engage in original research. I agree that many of the same conditions apply to Hungary in the seventeenth century as to Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria in the nineteenth century, but we do not make that decision in the voice of Wikipedia unless it has been made by historians and other reliable sources. Either find reliable sources that use the term with respect to Hungary, or show that reliable sources do not use the term with respect to Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria. Whether other countries are said to have been liberated is other content and is out of the scope of the article on Ottoman Hungary. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia should be based on reliable academic modern sources. Above I linked the talk page, I provided a lot of academic modern sources which describe the war against the Ottomans as event as "liberation of Hungary" which led the end of the Ottoman occupation in Hungary. I provided a lot of Hungarian sources to show what is the mainstream Hungarian historiography term regarding this, because this is a Hungarian topic. I also provided many academic sources from different countries regarding this, which also used the same term "liberation of Hungary". I also provided examples from many other articles which had the same historical situation: Ottoman occupation, and all of them use "liberation" term when Ottomans were expelled. Like other example war topics like the libeartion of France against the occupier Nazi Germany use that term. That is why I said it cannot be NPOV if articles with similar situation are using that + supported by academic sources as official term. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Indigenous peoples of Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DataNStats (talk · contribs)
• Uruguayan989 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Me and another user have a disagreement regarding how a set of data should be represented in the article. The issue arises from the differentiation between fact and opinion. I post a set of numbers backed by cited material, and the other user disagrees with the cited material based upon original research.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indigenous_peoples_of_Mexico#About_the_20%_figure https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uruguayan989&diff=prev&oldid=1196355951 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DataNStats#Edit_warring_and_Reverting_to_an_incorrect_estimate

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Many sources have been cited in our discussions. It would be helpful to have a nonbiased party see what the arguments are on either side. We can cite sources and say exactly where in the source our claims are said to be factual. This will make it easy for a 3rd non-biased party to distinguish fact from opinion.

• Volunteer Note - There is also a request for a Third Opinion at the Third Opinion noticeboard. This filing is on hold waiting for a response from the Third Opinion, and will be closed if the Third Opinion resolves the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

A statement was made on a talk page about the Third Opinion that the issue has been resolved. Can the request for moderated discussion be closed, or is moderated discussion still requested? If moderated discussion is still requested, please read DRN Rule A, and state concisely what you want changed in the article, or what you want left the same that the other editor wants changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Aisha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• StarkReport (talk · contribs)
• Kaalakaa (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The section "Age at marriage and Consummation" discusses about the dispute regarding the age of the subject matter. However, a differing perspective despite being held by a considerable number of scholars is being completely removed without adequate justification.

In order to strictly adhere to WP:FALSEBALANCE and to compromise further, I wrote: "Some Muslim scholars contend her age to be eighteen or nineteen based on other sources; however, these are rejected by the majority of historians as engaging in Historical revisionism." But another editor can't seem to agree with it. Can anyone assist us?

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[[38]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Make sure that the article upholds WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:Balance.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor of this filing on their user talk page. Please notify the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2024 (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.

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.

---

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Right-wing populism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SamuelRiv (talk · contribs)
• Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs)
• Darknipples (talk · contribs)
• Doniago (talk · contribs)
• Drmies (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A neutral review would be appreciated on a dispute on historical-comparative content at right-wing populism over verifiability: whether the editor has met WP:Burden (or if WP:V has been correctly applied) after I removed a large amount of content for failing WP:Verifiability.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Talk:Right-wing_populism#Edit-warring/OWNership/improper_removal_of_content_by_User:SamuelRiv -- Discussion over a week
• User_talk:Doniago#3O_decline_on_RWP -- 3O request declined procedurally; (I am unsure of next steps)
• User_talk:Purplebackpack89#Request_2 -- Suggestion of mediation agreed. (WP:M exists; WP:RfM does not; so I'm here)
  • "Agreed" is inaccurate here. I said "mediation was not necessary and Samuel created this anyway pbp 13:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• User_talk:SamuelRiv#Please_stopped_removing_sourced_content -- and various comments on other user pages w/ no discussion

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Mediation, if it is still an option. I can assure you that despite the summary 3O close, only two editors are discussing WP:V and WP:BURDEN, which is the start and end of the dispute. Nobody wants to be dragged into some argument over history or politics (I should hope), so please keep any comments about that out. I would also suggest reading the article Talk thread, as I hope I kept it about policy as much as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelRiv (talk • contribs)

I also dispute the "only two editors" claim and can provide diffs if needed. pbp 20:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

At the present time, what I'm most concerned about is that Samuel won't let this issue go and appears to be forum-shopping for somewhere where he can get a W, either in the article or against me. To say "this is ONLY a verifiability issue" is rather misleading, as is the claim that "only two editors are discussing" and the claim that "I agreed to this" pbp 13:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

What's going on here is SamuelRiv is asking for a do-over of a consensus that was not to his liking, a consensus that involved MORE than two editors, I might add An explanation of that consensus can be found in this edit. I've said it on the talk page, but I'll say it again: I believe the statements in the article pass verifiability. I also believe that Samuel's verifiability "check" wasn't thorough enough to justify a claim of "fails verifiability" to the tune of removal of 2K of text. (That sentiment is echoed by Drmies here). Samuel hasn't delineated here exactly what statements he's challenging and why. Samuel admits to NOT reading the articles he's checking in their entirety; he mostly just Ctrl+F and he may not have been Ctrl+F'ing the right search terms, he hasn't really said what terms he searched, though he was asked repeatedly.

Remedies/Resolutions

IMO, there are only two acceptable remedies:

1. SamuelRiv stands down from this topic everywhere and accepts the consensus, or,
2. The verifiability checks are redone and more thoroughly this time. For starters, whoever's doing it (either Samuel or an independent editor) has to explicitly identify what statements they're challenging and why. They need to explain the process they are using to verify. If it's a ctrl+F, they need to state all the terms that were ctrl+F'ed and be open to suggestions about additional terms. And they need to operate in transparency and with good faith, which Samuel hadn't pbp 22:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have much to say here. I only got involved because Samuel filed a WP:3O request relating to this matter. Upon reviewing the article Talk page, it appeared that there were more than two involved editors, which led me to procedurally decline the request. Since then I've heard from both Samuel and PBP, but I haven't reviewed and have no strong opinion on the underlying dispute at this time. Happy to provide more information upon request. DonIago (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I will try to mediate this dispute after I determine what the dispute is. First, please read DRN Rule D and state that you agree to it, and that you agree that contentious topic rules apply, because the dispute includes elements of American politics. It appears that two editors have been added who may have been initially been offering third opinions or fourth opinions. We will sort out who are substantive parties by asking what changes you want to make to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I will restate some of what DRN Rule D says. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements sometimes have no purpose except to make the poster feel better. Comment on content, not contributors. I don't want to hear from you about other editors. If you want to talk about other editors, you may report them at WP:ANI, preferably after reading the boomerang essay, but that will end the discussion here. Discussion of issues about one article should only be at one noticeboard at a time. Is there a discussion about this article at any other noticeboards?

By the way, this discussion here is mediation, if you agree to it. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I will ask the questions, and you will address your answers to the moderator (me) as the representative of the community. I may collapse back-and-forth discussion, or I may ignore it.

My first substantive question is the usual question: What changes do you want to make to the article, or what do you want left the same that another editor wants to change? Second, do you have any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Purplebackpack89

I agree to rule D

I would like consensus of January 27 adhered to and therefore one of the following versions accepted:

• The current revision
• Drmies' most recent version
• My most recent version

Further explanation on why can be found here. I believe each of those revisions pass verifiability. No cited content should be removed without a) a full explanation of what statements are being challenged and why, and b) an additional, more thorough verifiability check. pbp 00:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

One editor has responded. Other editors, including the filing editor, have not responded. The other non-filing editors will be assumed to be declining to participate. The filing editor, User:SamuelRiv, has edited since filing this case request. If they do not reply to my previous request that they explain what they want to change in the article, I will conclude that they wasted the time of the moderator and the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Just stating for the record that I am subscribed to this and actively following it. As per my initial statement, I just don't think I have much to say at this time as my primary involvement was limited to declining the 3O filing on the grounds that there were apparently more than two involved editors at the time. I hope Samuel will participate here, but if they fail to do so, I endorse PBP's stated feelings regarding the disposition of the content dispute. DonIago (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2024 (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.

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.

---

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Companion (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Alex_21 (talk · contribs)
• Shubopshadangalang (talk · contribs)
• Just Another Cringy Username (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This article has several problems, as per the tags I placed. Before tearing into it, I engaged on the talk page. I'll admit I came in hot, as I often do, but I did my best to keep the discussion focused on the article. I started the BRD cycle, whereupon my edits were reverted wholesale and I was accused of edit-warring when we had barely reached 3R.

Other editors made general suggestions about "improving the article rather than mass deleting." I contended that the article is so overloaded that mass deleting was appropriate. I'm removing unsourced and primary-sourced material, original research, and excessive detail more worthy of a fan wiki.

Other editors subsequently asserted that RS must exist somewhere and I should simply make a few polite trims. IMO, the vast majority of the article is unencyclopedic and I doubt the claim that RS exist. Talk page discussion has remained contentious and the two sides are unable to reach consensus on their own.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Companion_(Doctor_Who)#Cruft!

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Moderators should provide guidance on whether the article as written is properly encyclopedic, in particular

1. the use of TV episodes and other officially-licensed material as sources

2. the amount of original research and intricate detail

3. the appropriateness of large-scale deletion of perceived problematic sections as opposed to small trims

The filing editor started a discussion on the talk page, instantly, in their first post, accusing editors of being fanboys and that anyone else contributing would likely be a hindrance. After they were recommended to follow BRD by an uninvolved editor and administrator, the filing editor's bold mass removals were then reverted; instead of moving solely to discussion, they then forced their edits once more and discussed at the same time, hence going against the advice provided to them and starting an edit-war (note: there is a vast different between edit-warring and violating 3RR; I never said anything concerning the latter).

The other involved editor and myself provided feedback on these mass blank deletions and how they are more detrimental to the article than contributive, and provided advice on how to find sources and, at the very least, allow other editors time to improve the article, reminding them that there is no deadline. This advice was also ignored, and thus we end here. The editor has not contributed noteworthy discussion since, and has simply taken it here instead of replying to any of the advice provided to them - it is hard to reach a consensus when one side makes demands and will not discuss in good faith or a collaborative manner.

Mass deletions do not help improve an article. Not allowing other editors the time to contribute does not help improve an article. Calling those that they disagree with "fanboys" does not help improve an article. Making demands and forcing their edits after being reverted does not help improve an article. Copy-editing, trimming, adding sourcing, raising specific concerns, allowing time for editors to contribute, those are things that help an article and discussions move forward. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I also question Just Another Cringy Username's decision to file this report as an IP (98.36.171.112 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)) and thus while logged out? -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I was the one who filed this and I didn't mean to give any impression otherwise. I took a long time putting this together and got logged out automatically. I didn't know until I went to alert you two. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted to clarify and that makes sense, cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I believe this discussion/dispute is not a concern over the content itself, but rather a clash of what we editors determine to be contributive or constructive. On one side, two editors that have been here since 2007 and 2014 believe that tagging, sourcing and editing the existing material to be more encyclopedic is constructive. On the other side, the editor who has been here since 2022 believes in mass deletion without the attempt to improve the content, given that out of their most recent thousand contributions in the mainspace, only 22% have been additions (i.e. adding to an article), and 77% have been removals (46% of the total of which have been marked as major removals; i.e. over 500 bytes). -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Improvements to the purportedly problematic sections should at least be attempted before deleting over 1/3 of the entire article all at once with no warning. I'm a casual/occasional editor, but I've been through this process for nearly 17 years, and to me this should be obvious, particularly as the article itself has been around longer than that, so the existence of the content has on some level been through many rounds of editor consensus already, even if the quality of it needs improvement. Obvious or not, I believe that is the correct approach, and I dare say most experienced editors with far more edits under their belt would agree. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The new* user continues to overreact by elevating what should be a civil exchange to a "dispute" rather than taking advice on how to make constructive edits. Honestly, putting it through this process at this point is a waste of time and energy for everyone involved, so I won't waste any more time summarizing. Alex 21 already summed it up sufficiently above, and I agree entirely with their assessment. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: *I see now that the user in question made a mistake with the anonymous/IP attribution above, but that the actual user has nearly 2 years of experience editing, and that "new" isn't exactly the right term… I made a false assumption based on the behavior and tone of discussion that they were brand new to the process of editing. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Please read DRN Rule A, and state whether you agree to discussion under these rules (moderated discussion). Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. If you are ready for moderated discussion, please also state clearly what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I advise User:Just Another Cringy Username to request technical advice, either at Village Pump Technical, or elsewhere, as to how to avoid being logged out while composing a long post. That misfeature was undesirable and confusing, as the above discussion indicates. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Noted. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I have read and understood Rule A and I agree to abide by these terms.

This article's problems can largely be solved by holding it to the standards of WP:RS and WP:WAF. As it stands, the article is largely sourced by officially-licensed primary sources such as TV episodes. This is particularly prevalent in the sections Roles, Families and Childhoods, Loss of a Companion, and Deaths. Unless editors can provide proper secondary sources which meet RS, all such material should be deleted. A vague assertion such as "I'm sure there are sources somewhere and maybe someone will find them in the future" is inadequate.

These same sections contain large amounts of excessive detail and original research, commonly known as "fancruft." Detailing the life stories of every single Dr. Who Companion needlessly bogs down what should be a general overview article, especially considering that each of these characters has their own dedicated article already. The solution is the same: remove these sections entirely.

Ideally, this article should consist of a history of the Companion concept, a list of the Companions themselves, and any pertinent reliably sourced real-world discussion of the concept. Anything more and the article veers into territory more appropriate to a fan wiki than WP. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I also agree to the rules, but, again, feel that this process is unnecessary here. As for the general problems stated above in regard to the article's content: both I and the other editor have agreed to this already in the article discussion. Again, the issue here is not with identifying the problem, but with the proposed scorched-earth solution (edit: that is, the previous edit-warred deletion of nearly 40% of the article content all at once), and the uncivil manner it which it was presented. Rather, the solution is to make constructive edits over a reasonable amount of time, allowing for collaboration with the considerable number of people who have contributed content to the article over many years. As stated repeatedly in the article discussion, this is an example of what is meant by constructive: "if something is unnecessarily wordy, edit it. If something needs better sources, either add them, or tag that they're needed". That is the advice that was given, and ignored.

And, for the record, no one ever said "I'm sure there are sources somewhere and maybe someone will find them in the future" as quoted above, at least not in any discussion I was a part of. It's worth noting, however, that the opposite assertion - the absolute certainty of the absence of reliable sources – is equally ridiculous.

My suggestion is to restore the mass deletions, and then follow that advice and work together with other editors to improve the article patiently and collaboratively. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears that two editors have said that this dispute resolution process is unnecessary. Moderated dispute resolution is voluntary. Those editors may mean that the filing editor should be discussing first and trimming afterward. But here we are. So my first question is a little different than usual. My first questions are: Do you think that the article is unnecessarily long and should be pruned? Do you think that the article contains too much trivia? If you have any other concerns about the article, you may state them. If you think that the article should be left the same, but another editor wants to change it, please say what you think their issue is. If you have any other questions, you may ask them now. After the opening questions are answered, we will decide how to resolve the issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe I have spoken to all of this above already, but let me restate for clarity based on these questions: The article needs improvement, as everyone agrees, so it shouldn't be "left the same." But whether it is "unnecessarily long" is a bit of an arbitrary judgment… some content is necessary and justifiable for inclusion, some may not be, pending some constructive edits, tags where sources are needed, etc. Again, the issue at hand here is the solutions to these problems… we all agree to the general problems. The solution I propose is to restore the mass deletions and continue to work patiently and collaboratively to improve the article moving forward. Please let me know how else I can help here. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

To both of our moderator's questions re article length and trivial content, I answer yes. As the filing editor, I have previously stated my concerns with the article and would respectfully refer parties to the Dispute Overview and my Zeroeth Statement. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Shubopshadangalang writes:

The solution I propose it to restore the mass deletions and continue to work patiently and collaboratively to improve the article moving forward.

It appears that another editor who is not a party to this discussion restored the mass deletions. It appears that the current version of the article is the original version. So I will ask any editor who wants any changes made to the article to make a list of not more than four changes, each described in one paragraph, that they want made to the article. Do not reply to a statement by another editor. I will ask for replies on the next round. (The rules say that the moderator asks the questions and the participants answer the questions, and there should not be back-and-forth discussion.)

Also each editor should make a statement of one paragraph of whether they think that the current article contains fancruft. If so, your list may be of fancruft to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we would all agree that this article's content exists at all almost entirely because of the work of contributors who are passionate about the subject matter, but the minor downside is that it often results in the inclusion of unnecessary details and sourcing issues. The process of determining which content is included is one that should be resolved through — I'm just a broken record at this point — working patiently and collaboratively to improve the article moving forward. Editors, editing. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 21:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Not only does this article contain fancruft, I contend that it is primarily fancruft. Long, detailed descriptions of fictional elements, making extensive use of in-universe primary sources and written by editors who are passionate about the subject (read: fans), are the very essence of fancruft and though they may be welcome on a fan wiki, they do not belong on WP.

As for changes which should be made to the article, here they are:

1. The sections on Roles, Families and Childhoods, Loss of a Companion, and Deaths should be removed or at least severely trimmed. Detailing the life stories of every single Dr. Who Companion needlessly bogs down what should be a general overview article, especially considering that each of these characters has their own dedicated article already.

2. Sourcing should be scrutinized and primary sources discarded in favor of secondary wherever possible. If reliable sourcing cannot be found, the material should be removed as original research. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

As noted by an editor, each of the Companions is the subject of their own article. This means that much of the information in this article is duplicative of the individual fictional character articles. I am asking each editor for a statement as to what they want to do about the Families and Childhoods section and the Death section, and why. Any editor who has not yet answered my question about whether the article contains fancruft is asked to answer that question also. An editor mentioned a Loss of a Companion section. Is that another name for Death of a Companion, or does this refer to a section that no longer exists (in which case some of the deletions are still deleted)? Also, does each editor have a proposal for how to deal with duplication of information in this article and the character articles? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Diffs showing Loss of Companion section, my deletion of which has not been reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Companion_%28Doctor_Who%29&diff=1197521398&oldid=1197521227 Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the inidvidual companion character articles, the first thing would be to determine one-by-one whether each article is worthy of having its own article, and if not, each one should be edited appropriately and included within in the Companion article, with any links to it redirected to its section in this article. That process could take some time, and is one of the reasons why an arbitrary question about whether this article should be longer or shorter is not helpful, and why resolving all of the problems with the article won't be concluded by this oversimplified process; improving the article (and its related articles) is an ongoing, complex effort. Let me know any other way I can be of help here. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

To answer the moderator's question about the sections mentioned, each should be addressed through the editing process, as each can and should be improved by making constructive edits and improving sourcing where possible, or combined with other sections, and, again, this would be a long process that requires patience and collaboration. I am not in favor of the immediate/arbitrary/wholesale deletion of that content based on this process. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of moderated discussion at DRN is to improve the article, in this case, Companion (Doctor Who). Please read Be Specific at DRN. We are not engaging in preliminary discussion of how to improve the article. We are discussing what improvements need to be made to the article. This DRN is the beginning of the long process that requires patience and collaboration. So I will ask my questions again. An editor who has already answered a question need not answer it again.

1. Make a one-paragraph statement of whether the article contains fancruft. If so, identify any fancruft that should be deleted.
2. Make a list of not more than four changes that should be made to the current version of the article.
3. What, if anything, should be changed in the sections on Families and Childhood, and on Death?
4. Should the section on Loss of a Companion be restored? Why or why not?
5. Is there any information in this article on companions that should be deleted because it is duplicated in the individual articles?
6. Are there any articles about companions that should be deleted as not having enough information to warrant separate articles?

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

We are not at DRN to discuss procedures for improving the article. We are here to talk about the improvements to the article.

If you want more than 48 hours to reply, please make a partial reply, and say that you are still working on completing it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe I've made it clear in my previous comments that we should not be "at DRN" at all. The only person who considers this a "dispute" is the user whose edits failed to reach consensus on the article. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I've looked through a few of the individual articles and most of them suffer the same problems as this one, i.e. mainly a retelling of Whovian lore with little to no real-world discussion and sourced from in-universe material. The one which strikes me as most ripe for deletion would be Nardole as it has no showing of notability or SIGCOV whatsoever. Regardless of the merits of each Companion having their own article, a general article covering Companions as a whole need not contain such extensive detail as it presently does. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The article is primarily valuable and needs improvement, as we all agree. Please see my previous comments; I have nothing further to add at this time. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I will shortly be closing this case as declined by the other editors, and participation in DRN is voluntary. I am advising the filing editor that the first step in addressing their concerns is to post a request for additional editors at either WikiProject Doctor Who or WikiProject Science Fiction, and discuss on the article talk page. The second step may be Requests for Comments, which seek participation by the community. In particular, the deletion of each of the sections that they wish to delete, Roles, Families and Childhood, Loss of a Companion, and Death, can be answered by an RFC. Use a separate RFC for each section in question. Be sure that each RFC is neutrally worded.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2024 (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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Ed Rush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 81.187.192.168 (talk · contribs)
• Alon Alush (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Edit war regarding unsourced material in a BLP.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Ed Rush#Edit war

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Your views on how WP:BLP is being interpreted by the users involved.

This is forum shopping. There is already a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ed Rush and Talk:Ed Rush#Edit war. A third discussion attempting to overturn WP:BLP seems otiose. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You're making the assumption here that I was aware of your Noticeboard post, and that my posting here is therefore motivated by an ulterior motive. I was not aware of the Noticeboard post, it was not forum shopping, and you should AGF. Similarly, your claim that I am attempting to "overturn WP:BLP" is an unnecessary attack on my character. --82.174.179.202 (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I mistakenly reverted the changes, When I looked at it after, I realized that the current version on the website is superior. This situation should not be misunderstood as an edit war. I think that the version of 81.187.192.168 is better. My stance on this situation is: I agree that Ed Rush is Ben Settle, But this is the superior way to present the information: "Ed Rush is the stage name used by the drum and bass producer and DJ, Ben Settle (born 1973)" as 81.187.192.168 said.

Not only are you missing the point of the discussion, but you also didn't present an argument as to why the initial phrasing would be superior. Articles about musicians who have nicknames start with their real names. See, for example, Bono, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Snoop Dogg, Eminem, Stevie Wonder, Jay-Z, Adele, The Weeknd, Drake (musician), Shakira, Nicki Minaj, Lil Wayne, Bruno Mars, Alicia Keys, and Pink (singer). --82.174.179.202 (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2024 (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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Aramaic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PersonJanuary2024 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Could you please engage in the discussion and read the entire thread? There are disputes regarding the sources. Which of the mentioned sources meet Wikipedia's requirements to be cited in the article? User Shmayo is notably vehemently opposing this. Thank you in advance!

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Aramaic#Shmayo deletes sourced information [[39]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Find a solution.

---

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.

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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• John Hinckley Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Shevvvv (talk · contribs)
• FMSky (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Myself and another editor disagree as to whether it's appropriate to include a picture of Jodie Foster on this article. Me (and another editor in the past) agree that it's creepy an inappropriate. Editor FMSky keeps reverting the removal of this picture. I've been unable to find Wikipedia's policy on tastefulness but it seems clearly distasteful to me, and it doesn't really serve the article at all, so I'd prefer it to be removed. Since FMSky disagrees I'd like a third opinion.

(I don't edit Wikipedia much so am not sure if this is the best avenue for help, but it seemed like a reasonable option?)

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Hinckley_Jr.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide guidance on whether removing this photo from this article is reasonable, given that several editors would like to do so.

---

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.