Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
 | Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread • |
| Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
| ||||||||||||
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Elections in Cuba | New | Bart Terpstra (t) | 3 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 15 hours | Slatersteven (t) | 1 days, 5 hours |
| Exmor | New | AP 499D25 (t) | 2 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 14 hours | Guyfromturkey (t) | 1 days, 12 hours |
| History of Transylvania | New | Aristeus01 (t) | 22 hours | None | n/a | Aristeus01 (t) | 22 hours |
| Serbia | New | TylerBurden (t) | 22 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 13 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 03:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
 | If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputesEdit
Elections in CubaEdit
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Bart Terpstra (talk · contribs)
- Slatersteven (talk · contribs)
- Czello (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
An editor is trying to add what they see as a major POV to the page by specifying who made the claims that a country is or is not democratic, as what country is or is not democratic is based on opinion. (see: difficulties in measuring democracy)
specifically as the perspective of western commentators.
This was rejected as "Cuba is in the west" and "these aren't "commentators" these are academics" and as pushing POV, where the introducing editor viewed it as introducing NPOV.
It was also rejected on the basis that there is a scientific consensus on it not being democratic, but to begin with, 3/4 sources cited making that claim are American universities, which have an active bias in this case.
The same editor also tried to add the context that despite the USA citing the lack of democracy in Cuba as one of the primary reasons to continue the embargo, the USA does do business and ally itself with dictatorships around the world and is not considered a democracy itself by people inside and outside it's borders.
The second edit was rejected as being wp:synth and wp:or, despite being a common argument and being published in wp:rs.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[[1]]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
getting clarification on the wider Wikipedia consensus on the subjectivity of Democracy: should claims of being democratic and not being democratic be clarified in cases where the outcome is instrumentalised as part of geopolitics?
getting clarification on what WP:synth is and is not.
Summary of dispute by SlaterStevenEdit
To my mind it does not matter where the sources are from, they are RS. Thus is seems to be to be trying to imply bias.
As to the USA not being democratic, this is irrelevant, as it does not in fact tell us anything about Cuba or its democracy.
Now the issue of the USA's hypocrisy is less controversial, but the sources used were not that good, and none of them linked the hypocrisy to Cuba. Thus (again) it told us nothing about the subject and was (it seems to be) trying to draw inferences the sources did not make. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
In essence, none of the added content had anything to actually do with the state of democracy in Cuba. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by CzelloEdit
Elections in Cuba discussionEdit
- Volunteer Note - I have corrected the case-sensitive spelling of one username. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
ExmorEdit
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Kleuske (talk · contribs)
- 181.167.210.101 (talk · contribs)
- Samson1357924 (talk · contribs)
- 188.243.182.16 (talk · contribs)
- Revwescol (talk · contribs)
- 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk · contribs)
- Ricky81682 (talk · contribs)
- DanielSururuHK (talk · contribs)
- Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk · contribs)
- 2001:EE0:478D:F970:71D7:9220:B3F1:80BB (talk · contribs)
- Woodroar (talk · contribs)
- 84.65.105.173 (talk · contribs)
- 2003:D4:6F38:C090:7701:8776:C467:EA87 (talk · contribs)
- 331dot (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
On 18 November 2022, Kleuske removed the product list tables from the Exmor article, citing WP:NOTCATALOG as the reason for removal. This has sparked a massive controversy, which is still ongoing to this day, involving dozens of editors on both sides of the dispute, both on the article as well as many more on its talk page. There are at least 18 editors on the talk page who have expressed their opposition of the removal and want the list tables restored.
An RfC was started on the talk page on 26 December 2022, which has been concluded to be in favour of the removal. However, the RfC has not resolved the dispute, with numerous further requests to restore the lists on the talk page from various editors since then, as well as further attempts by various editors to restore the list on the article as recent as May 2023.
The page has been semi-protected four times because of the content dispute, with the current protection lasting until May 2024. I have no doubt that as long as this dispute remains not properly resolved, there will be further attempts to restore the list tables on the article as soon as the current protection expires.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
- Talk:Exmor#Product catalog.
- Talk:Exmor#😟
- Talk:Exmor#Reporting for vandalism
- Talk:Exmor#Request for comment on list of sensor models (RfC)
- Talk:Exmor#Thanks for killing this good page
- Talk:Exmor#Request for information
- Talk:Exmor#Removal of the Product Catalogue.
- Talk:Exmor#Reinstate list into a separate list page
- Talk:Exmor#Where is the product list?
- Talk:Exmor#Consensus?
- Talk:Exmor#Be consistent and delete Samsung's Isocell sensor list too
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I believe that there is a strong consensus here to restore at least a list of some sort on the Exmor article. Although it may be in violation of Wikipedia's content policies such as WP:NOTCATALOG, I believe that the product lists were highly useful to many readers of the article, which is reflected in the messages from various users on the talk page. My opinion is that a smaller list should be created which covers significant/"referencable" products only.
Summary of dispute by KleuskeEdit
As I stated on the talk-page, articles are not product catalogs. The amount of technical detail on obscure sensors was excessive (144k) and a clear violation of WP:NOTCATALOG and lends WP:UNDUE weight to above mentioned sensors to the detriment of the actual encyclopedic article. I stand with those statements. I am not opposed to an overview of the product line, but an encyclopedic article is not a datasheet. All the interesting information is still accessible in the page history and should be hosted by Sony, not Wikipedia.Kleuske (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by 181.167.210.101Edit
Summary of dispute by Samson1357924Edit
Summary of dispute by 188.243.182.16Edit
Summary of dispute by RevwescolEdit
Summary of dispute by 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29Edit
Summary of dispute by Ricky81682Edit
Summary of dispute by DanielSururuHKEdit
Summary of dispute by Someone who's wrong on the internetEdit
Summary of dispute by 2001:EE0:478D:F970:71D7:9220:B3F1:80BBEdit
Summary of dispute by WoodroarEdit
Summary of dispute by 84.65.105.173Edit
Summary of dispute by 2003:D4:6F38:C090:7701:8776:C467:EA87Edit
Summary of dispute by 331dotEdit
- It's not controversial that a smaller, better sourced list would be permissible. I've said this more than once on the talk page. I'm not really sure why this case was opened. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note that most of the supporters of the list seem to be concerned with what is "useful" to them personally, and less so with Wikipedia guidelines like WP:NOTDIRECTORY. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by GuyfromturkeyEdit
Hi I am the person that wrote from multiple IP's due to forgetting to make account. (88.230.43.132---88.230.44.144) and tried my best to refute every single point in 88.230.43.132. I honestly think the Wikipedia is a whole isn't really dictated by rules but rather common sense.
Point 1 Wikipedia explictly allows this - Ignore All Rules -
Note:Sorry if this looks bit too raw. I don't know much about official editing so please don't wade it off as "wade of text nobody is going to read that" as it happened in talk page.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules" explictly says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". This rule is over a decade old and the simple fact that how this page was fought all between the world from GMT-12 zones like Australia to the GMT 0 of Europe and Argentina.
Point 2 "Fancruft"
The fancruft is about how fans make excessively detailed lists about TV show characters. This page was edited by lots of people and I honestly don't understand why would anyone decide to fan over only one single companys sensors. Sadly I don't really have computer know how but I wouldn't say anyone would decide to only "fan" over only one company when improving Wikipedia.
The editors who want this list to get removed simply think "This list doesn't help anyone other than small subset of developers" which is horrendous because this benefitted not just some developers who nobody knows how many used but as I told multiple times. Friends and family that I showed this to help what to buy.
Only people "fanning" over this article were the editors putting call to delete on seperate Exmor list within an hour of its posting by RM12
Point 3 Wikipedia expliclty has criteria of putting technology lists and "Catalogue"
From the horses mouth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no":
Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it? If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
Both are fullfilled in article+list of Exmor or used to be before it was chopped off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contents/Lists
All these pages are listed in official mainpage of list of lists. There are explict tutorials on how to make lists and manuals of stlyes. I am willing to bet this page wasted/spent someone megabytes when all they wanted was lookup two CPU's meanwhile this page is 151k and is "too much" even though it also has details what phone used what.
More so these pages are actual catalogues with Part Numbers and suggested pricing in dollars and Exmor and isocell is none of that besides it's really weird how ISOCELL is biased how it's not removed but Exmor list is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_processors - This page has zero references is probably over megabytes and isn't even split but thanks to community feedback someone is planning to redesign the table. This page was edited over the years and it has less than 50 references
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_processors_(Broadwell-based) - zero references
The other point of this is that while admins that delete this list frequently cite how Wikipedia isn't a webhost are telling people to link to old static page before list was purged. Nobody is going to link to old revision clogging up webs pace in Wikipedia and ironically will be more waste of space
Point 4 Literally everyone in the internet wants this list to be killed.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/camerawiki/discuss/72157721917937671/
It was suggested in Wikipedia that this page was more fitting for camera-wiki multiple times but when I went there nobody was interested and editwar articles like this aren't welcome and I should go make my own website.
The only alternative is said to be "It's Sony's job to have this list" but let's be honest with ourselves. Why would they pan out such simple technical information about their sensors and smartphone companies?
The separate list was shot down in less than a week after getting marked for deletion within less than a hour by one of the admins that were opposed to this list even though seperate lists like that are allowed all the way across the wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Sony_Exmor_image_sensors&action=edit&redlink=1
Point 5 Internet is a plenty allready and whose is it to decide what is too much whetever size or detail?
It has been said multiple times that 151kilobytes of data being "too much". Meanwhile in reality even if someone were to use dialup it would take less than 5 seconds to download. which corresponds to what lag most browsers have loading a page. Wikipedia isn't going to bankrupt overnight because of web traffic of 151k of text while the logo image alone is probably double of that.
It is also said that how it can be done so only the "major" sensors should be included but how are we going to keep a track of that? What if one of the sensors not included in the list gets used in some smartphone? Will it be really worth it to save some pixels on someones screen to making a wikipedia contributor to have a easier to adding what phones used the sensor in "Notes" section?
There are already notability guidelines and "Should there be list" guideline I wrote above that are both checked.
Point 6 admin consensus?
The talk page of Admin kleuske has him saying how he "give no hoot" when asked why he does this and 331dot seems to be "no one is going to read this wall of text" when someone tried a detailed defense .
The RFC seems to be made by admins who simply read FANCRUFT CATALOGUE pages and simply agreed without much thought over "don't edit if there is no benefit / rules for lists" all the while a longtime Wikipedia user was simply left unresponded by the rest in the RFC
The other "catalogue" of ISOCELL sensors is simply left untouched and the person who actually listed type and number of references seems to be never involved here meanwhile the admins that do their best to purge this article talk a lot about "bad references" here don't say anything else and roundabout about their statements here
Point 7 this page is too noteworthy to be simply deleted
As banner stated. This list was used by XDA Developers news and congratulated over how community banded up to make such a useful list .
I am not the only person bothered by this as seen here which disproves "only small developers benefit from this page" claim
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66938457
As said before whose is it to say "Wikipedia isn't some camera buy trivia website"?
Summary
151k isn't all that big in age of 10 Gigabit internet and 5G networks and its negligible on dial up and ever decreasing hosting prices. Literally nobody is benefitting of how "151k of extra useless information should be removed" when there are allready pages full of actual catalogue grade part numbers and MSRP's all while Wikipedia explicitly allows and help making a list like this and has a rule to only edit if it's beneficial .
In the end this senseless drama has beem going on for zero reason and it honestly should stop. Please help people who help their relatives to get phones as opposed to some admins who literally vandalize a page for zero benefit
thanks for reading
Guyfromturkey (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Exmor discussionEdit
Zeroth statement by volunteer (Exmor)Edit
I don't think that this is the sort of dispute for which moderated discussion will be useful. As the filing party states, there was an RFC that was closed in late January 2023, and there was a consensus to remove the table. There has been at least a rough consensus to remove the table. What does the filing editor mean by the RfC has not resolved the dispute
? Not every dispute is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Sometimes there is disagreement, and rough consensus rather than solid consensus must prevail, and the editors who are in the minority should accept the majority. What does the filing editor mean by
I have no doubt that as long as this dispute remains not properly resolved, there will be further attempts to restore the list tables on the article as soon as the current protection expires.
? That appears to mean: "The editors who want the table will be persistent, and don't want to accept the status quo." What is really meant?
The filing editor has listed eight other registered editors and six IP addresses. Moderated discussion is very seldom feasible with so many editors. The most effective way to resolve a content dispute with a large number of editors is an RFC. There has already been an RFC. Four months later, with continuing complaints, another RFC may be in order.
Does the filing party want another RFC, possibly publicized better, or can the filing party explain what they want? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Statement by filing partyEdit
History of TransylvaniaEdit
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- OrionNimrod (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Disagreement on the information to be included from the cited source: https://www.academia.edu/1825911/Nobility_land_and_service_in_medieval_Hungary pages 91 to 93. OrionNimrod considers current version to be the ok, myself I think it should also include the following information from the text: "Linguistic evidence suggests a Romanian presence in Hunyad county from at least the eleventh century" "It could, nevertheless, also be taken to indicate the new political importance attaching to the Romanian chieftains of Transylvania and the Lower Danube which made their presence for the first time worthy of record." and the "largely" from the phrase: "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century"
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:History of Transylvania#Martyn Rady, academic British source
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Provide with a uninvolved opinion on the text content and information suitable for the page in order to have a good use of the source.
Summary of dispute by OrionNimrodEdit
I have no dispute regarding to the mentioned things, in talk page explained everything, morover I posted even myself 2 hours earlier than the opening of this noticeboard report 1 content from above what is allegedly disputed by me...
History of Transylvania discussionEdit
SerbiaEdit
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- TylerBurden (talk · contribs)
- Theonewithreason (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Dispute on link to crime in Serbia under ″law and criminal justice″ section. Discussion quickly got stuck, so RfC was started which has not brought in much input. Only two additonal editors have participated, one after I raised the topic on Wikiproject countries, and one from AN/I in a report created due to the behavour during the dispute.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
More input from uninvolved editors looking objectively at the RfC would be the best way forward in the dispute.
Summary of dispute by TheonewithreasonEdit
Serbia discussionEdit
- Volunteer Note - This appears to be a request for assistance in publicizing an RFC. That isn't the usual purpose of DRN, but it is a reasonable request. Is the filing editor asking for assistance in publicizing the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)