Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 250

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 245←Archive 248Archive 249Archive 250Archive 251

Wudu

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

On June 25, 2024‎ Abo Yemen deleted content from article Wudu. The content has been there since before February 2, 2016. Since February 2, 2016 there have been approximately 500 edits from multiple users and the content has remained.

I have tried to add back this content and Abo Yemen keeps reverting. Note i have been thanked by user Phefeni for adding the old content back.

Abo Yemen view is as below these are references, not text that should be part of the main article. Plus most of them are redundant and really.. useless since there are other sources already. Ill try to include them if it's needed tho dont worry I dont see how including all the views of the 5 scholars is needed. Only one is enough adding useless info before 8 years doesn't make it credible. this article survived on wikipedia for 10 years but that doesn't make it real.

My view is as below The reason you we should include the 5 scholars is to show transparency and the reference to reliable publications support the content that Wikipedia contains so readers can verify the facts at source. The article needs to distinguish clearly between the translation of wiping and washing the feet which has been translated by famous scholars noted with links Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Rashad Khalifa, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Maulana Muhammad Ali. All these scholars have wiki pages associated to them.

I have clearly identified the item that needs to be restored on Talk:Wudu#Restoration of an old version of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasserb786 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Wudu#Restoration_of_an_old_version_of_the_article

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

the removed content too be added back and protect this part of the content from future attack's.

Summary of dispute by Abo_Yemen

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

Starting on 14:09, 16 June 2024 I have started doing some copy-edits to the wudu article with the goal of trying to promote the article to GA class by removing every useless, uninformative, and un-encyclopedic stuff in order to make the article more useful and readable.

Now Nasserb786, who as he claims wants to add the names of translators of the quran for some reason (which is based on his original research btw instead of adding sources), kept on reverting the article to this version that he have wrote back in 2016 (and this version is the one where he added the name of the 5th translator) instead of actually adding the part that he claimed that he wanted to add to the article and did so by edit warring by reverting the article to his 2016 edit and after reverting his edits he started using my talkpage for discussing his restoration of the old and bad version of the article 3 times [1] [2] [3] with each time i've told him to discuss his edits on the article's talk page.

The rest of the "dispute" happened on Talk:Wudu#Restoration of an old version of the article Abo Yemen✉ 13:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Wudu discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Abo Yemen does not want me to use his talk page and rather use the talk page under the article. Nasserb786 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
that is not a reason to start a dispute resolution. If you want to start a discussion in a user talkpage then it should be in yours and not mine Abo Yemen✉ 16:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Note Abo Yemen has been notified on the wudu talk page. Nasserb786 (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon isn't this considered canvassing? Abo Yemen✉ 18:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


Zeroth statement by moderator (Wudu)

I am ready to conduct moderated discussion, if the editors are ready. Please read DRN Rule A and state that you agree to these discussion rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask questions, and you are asked to address your answers to the moderator and the community.

Notice to another editor must be on their user talk page. Notice on an article talk page is not sufficient. A notice not to post to the user talk page of another editor should be honored, with a very few exceptions, and one of them is that noticeboard notices must be placed on the user talk page, and an editor is required and permitted to put such notices on a user talk page, even if they have otherwise been told not to post to that page. However, Abo Yemen has made a statement here, and notice is not required to an editor who has made a statement here. So discussion can begin.

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to state concisely what changes they wish to make to the article that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what changes the other editor wants to make that they want to leave the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have read the rules and I agree to them.
Nasser wants to add the names of 5 translators of one single source to the verse from Al-Ma'idah which I don't see how it would be of use in an article about ritual washing. He also wants to include 7 sources but instead of putting them in a citation he wants them to be in the main text of the article, which I'm pretty sure is a violation of the MOS. Abo Yemen✉ 05:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I have read the rules and I agree to them. Thank you for moderating
For background on difficulty of Arabic translation please refer to Arabic_machine_translation and Classical_Arabic.
This article Wudu is based on the translation of the verse from the Quran specifically verse Qur'an 5:6.
There are two views on the translation of this verse "wiping' and "washing" of the feet which are observed by Shia and Sunni Muslims respectively.
The content I am asking to include is Under the section ===Farā'id according to Sunni Muslims===
According to Sunni Muslims, the Qur'anic mandate for wuḍūʾ comes in the sixth ayat of sura 5. The ayat has been translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Rashad Khalifa, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Maulana Muhammad Ali as follows. Note that this translation refers to washing the feet.

O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands, Allah doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete His favour to you, that ye may be grateful.

— Al-Ma'ida, Sura 5, Ayah 6[1]
Washing both the feet once up to and including the ankles. It's not sufficient for one to pass wet hand over the feet or shoes. Under certain conditions masah can be done over leather socks known as khuffs.[2]
  1. Narrated by Abd-Allah ibn Amr: "...we were just passing wet hands over our feet (not washing them thoroughly) so he addressed us in a loud voice saying twice or thrice, 'Save your heels from the fire.'."[3]
  2. Narrated by 'Ubaid Ibn Juraij: "...and he used to perform ablution while wearing the shoes (i.e. wash his feet and then put on the shoes)."[4]
  3. Narrated by Yahya Al-Mazini: " 'Can you show me how Allah's Apostle used to perform ablution?' ...and washed his feet (up to the ankles)."[5]
  4. Narrated by 'Amr: "...and then he washed his feet up to the ankles."[6]
  5. Narrated by Humran: "...and washed his feet up to the ankles..."[7]
  6. Narrated by 'Amr bin Yahya: "...and washed his feet up to the ankles..."[8]
  7. Narrated by 'Abdullah bin Zaid: "...and washed his feet (up to the ankles)."[9]
The reason we should include the scholars is to show transparency, support to the translation of washing the feet and reference to reliable publications to support the content the article contains so readers can verify the facts at source.
To include the content of the snippets of the sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad further collaborates the translation of washing the feet and adds support to the content.
This make this section ===Farā'id according to Sunni Muslims=== similar to ===Farā'id according to Shia Muslims=== and distinguish clearly between the translation of "wiping" and "washing" the feet.
There are many ways to format content in the article and I am open to how that is done, as long as the content is included so readers can preform there own research and verify the facts at source. Nasserb786 (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)


First statement by moderator (Wudu)

User:Nasserb786, User:Abo Yemen - Inviting an editor who has made 4 edits and has not edited the page in question appears to be meatpuppetry. Inviting editors who have participated in a discussion to come to DRN is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I am asking each editor to state concisely what changes they wish to make to the article that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what changes the other editor wants to make that they want to leave the same.

First statements by editors (Wudu)

For background on difficulty of Arabic translation please refer to Arabic_machine_translation and Classical_Arabic.
This article Wudu is based on the translation of the verse from the Quran specifically verse Qur'an 5:6.
There are two views on the translation of this verse "wiping' and "washing" of the feet which are observed by Shia and Sunni Muslims respectively.
The content I am asking to include is Under the section ===Farā'id according to Sunni Muslims===
According to Sunni Muslims, the Qur'anic mandate for wuḍūʾ comes in the sixth ayat of sura 5. The ayat has been translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Rashad Khalifa, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Maulana Muhammad Ali as follows. Note that this translation refers to washing the feet.

O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands, Allah doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete His favour to you, that ye may be grateful.

— Al-Ma'ida, Sura 5, Ayah 6[1]
Washing both the feet once up to and including the ankles. It's not sufficient for one to pass wet hand over the feet or shoes. Under certain conditions masah can be done over leather socks known as khuffs.[10]
  1. Narrated by Abd-Allah ibn Amr: "...we were just passing wet hands over our feet (not washing them thoroughly) so he addressed us in a loud voice saying twice or thrice, 'Save your heels from the fire.'."[11]
  2. Narrated by 'Ubaid Ibn Juraij: "...and he used to perform ablution while wearing the shoes (i.e. wash his feet and then put on the shoes)."[12]
  3. Narrated by Yahya Al-Mazini: " 'Can you show me how Allah's Apostle used to perform ablution?' ...and washed his feet (up to the ankles)."[13]
  4. Narrated by 'Amr: "...and then he washed his feet up to the ankles."[14]
  5. Narrated by Humran: "...and washed his feet up to the ankles..."[7]
  6. Narrated by 'Amr bin Yahya: "...and washed his feet up to the ankles..."[15]
  7. Narrated by 'Abdullah bin Zaid: "...and washed his feet (up to the ankles)."[16]
The reason we should include the scholars is to show transparency, support to the translation of washing the feet and reference to reliable publications to support the content the article contains so readers can verify the facts at source.
To include the content of the snippets of the sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad further collaborates the translation of washing the feet and adds support to the content.
This make this section ===Farā'id according to Sunni Muslims=== similar to ===Farā'id according to Shia Muslims=== and distinguish clearly between the translation of "wiping" and "washing" the feet.
There are many ways to format content in the article and I am open to how that is done, as long as the content is included so readers can preform there own research and verify the facts at source.

Zeroth statements by editors (Wudu)

Second statement by moderator (Wudu)

User:Nasserb786 has provided a paragraph, and I think that they are saying that they want to add it to the article in the section on Farā'id according to Sunni Muslims. Are they asking to add it to the existing section, or to replace the existing section with it?

Does User:Abo Yemen agree to that addition? If not, do they have any other changes that they want to make, or do they want to leave the section unchanged? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

no i do not agree to that addition because there is no reason to include all those translator names and the 7 sources inline instead of putting them in a ref tag. Abo Yemen✉ 05:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by Nasserb786

Yes, its to add back this content that was in place since February 2, 2016. This content was removed by Abo Yemen on June 25, 2024.

Second statement by Abo Yemen

Third statement by moderator (Wudu)

Are the seven quotes that Nasserb786 wants to include actually seven versions or translations of the same original? Is that what this dispute is about? What is the reason for including seven versions of the same hadith?

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by Nasserb786

Question. Are the seven quotes that Nasserb786 wants to include actually seven versions or translations of the same original? Answer. No. These are 7 separate hadiths Each with their own reference number. 

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 164
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 167
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 185
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 186
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 161
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 190
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1: Book 4: Number 196

Question. Is that what this dispute is about? Answer. No. Dispute is to add back the content that Abo Yemen keeps removing. The are are 2 content sections that need to be added back. 1 Content referring to the scholars who have translated the verse to washing the feet. The reason we should include the scholars is to show transparency, support to the translation of washing the feet and reference to reliable publications to support the content the article contains so readers can verify the facts at source.

2 Content referring to the 7 separate hadiths. See reason below

Question. What is the reason for including seven versions of the same hadith? Answer. To include the content of the 7 different snippets of the sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad further collaborates the translation of washing the feet and adds support to the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasserb786 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by Abo Yemen

Fourth statement by moderator (Wudu)

It appears that one of the editors wishes to include seven hadiths about washing the feet that appear to say the same thing, probably because they are seven different translations of the same original. Is that correct? If so, is there any other dispute?

If the issue is the inclusion of seven hadiths that repeat the same statement, then please explain why, in your opinion, the inclusion is supported by or is not supported by the principle of balance.

If this discussion does not resolve the dispute, we should probably request a third opinion from WikiProject Islam on the question of due weight and balance.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Nasserb786

Fourth statement by Abo Yemen

References

  1. ^ a b Quran 5:6
  2. ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:182
  3. ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:164
  4. ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:167
  5. ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:185
  6. ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:186
  7. ^ a b Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:161
  8. ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:190
  9. ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:196
  10. ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:182
  11. ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:164
  12. ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:167
  13. ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:185
  14. ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:186
  15. ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:190
  16. ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:4:196
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.

USA

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

This user keeps on changing the info of the lord of the rings war of rohirrim and he won’t stop editing. I trying to fix the info but he keeps coming back.please do something to temporarily block him or something

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

The distribution section in the lord of the rings war of the rohirrim

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By blocking Adamstom.97 temporary?

Summary of dispute by Adamstom.97

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

USA discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.

Nivkh alphabets

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Good day! Initially, the dispute began because of my moderation of the specified article. I just rechecked in what form the link in the specified form has the current alphabet. My other opponent ignored this fact, and began to insist that the letters he replaced are allographs, but no convincing evidence was shown, and for some reason now I have to prove the opposite. My other opponent behaves as if the colonizer knows more than other natives and is trying to teach them to read and write. Sorry, maybe for the unfortunate analogy. But the evidence provided is more like OR.

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

[[4]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Either the opponent will provide other, more convincing evidence, or roll back the edits to match the ALREADY EXISTING references in the article.

Summary of dispute by Kwamikagami

These letter variants are allographs, per sources, and both variants are acceptable for the writing of Nivkh and many other languages of Siberia. (For example, ⟨Ң⟩ with a ticked tail and ⟨Ӈ⟩ with a curved tail, and similarly with other letters in the series, e.g Қ/Ӄ and Ҳ/Ӽ.) AFAICT, Modun has failed to provide a single source to the contrary, and is relying solely on WP:TRUTH.

We have as one source, in a discussion about why it was a mistake for Unicode to assign separate characters to these curved ⟨Ӈ⟩ letter variants, and the reasons Unicode has refused to do the same for additional letters (e.g. a curved variant of ⟨Ҷ⟩ che), by an expert in some of the languages in question (namely N. and E. Khanty and Nenets), an account of how a an influential textbook publishing house (Education Ltd.) created the curved-tail glyphs as in-house variants of these letters for their primers, primary-grade textbooks and other materials when publishing in the govt-assigned alphabet. This is part of a series of discussions involving multiple linguists working on these languages. We also have recent govt publications, in Nivkh, using the original ticked (e.g. ⟨Ң⟩) forms of the letters, including formal material such as trade documents. That is, both forms are in use in the modern era. Modun keep providing sources that use the Education variants of the letters, e.g. ⟨Ӈ⟩, as if they somehow negates the other. Modun has reverted the addition of the ticked variants to the alphabet charts and deleted a reference to the Unicode discussion, replacing it with a 'cn' tag.

There's nothing suggesting Nivkh is special in this regard. It's a general feature of these letters across the minority languages of Siberia, no more significant than the difference between double-loop ⟨g⟩ vs script ⟨ɡ⟩ in English, and unusual only in that Unicode (mistakenly) assigned them separate codes.

For Khanty, another language of Siberia that uses some of these letters, we recently found an orthography committee who decided that the curved-tail variants ⟨Ӈ Ԓ⟩ are to be preferred. At the same time, the principle Khanty language journal has gone in the opposite direction, using a third variant, ⟨Ӊ Ӆ⟩ with a diagonal tail. Modun insists these are different alphabets, despite no evidence for that idea, because allographs supposedly do not occur in Cyrillic. When I pointed out the extensive allography between Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian, he said those were "font" differences. Well, these are "font" differences too: Education Ltd created their own font for their textbooks.

Because two graphic variants are used for these letters in Nivkh, both by official sources, both should be included in the article. We should presumably stick to one for the examples for consistency, but the alphabet charts should reflect what people actually use. — kwami (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't say that allographers don't encounter it in Cyrillic. And excuse me, why is the commission for discussing alphabets of one language(s) applicable to another language? It's the same as if we were now discussing the spelling of the English language and why the results would be applicable to other languages ​​(for example, to French, Spanish or other languages).
The source you indicated discusses the Tofa, Khanty and Evenki alphabets, as far as I remember, but there is no mention of the Nivkh alphabet.
This is a direct lie about deletion!
This is what it was like before the rollback: 1, This is what happened after the rollback: 2, 3 and here's what happened next, you added the link LATER!
You can't even provide convincing evidence that these letters are "allographs". This is not a proven fact! Modun (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
These forms are allographs across the board, per RS's. They were part of a general Soviet standardization of the minority languages of Russia and occur in multiple languages.
I would think govt ministry publications in Nivkh would count as evidence that both variants are used in Nivkh. That's also suggested by the history, that the curved variants were created by Education Ltd. after the Nivkh alphabet had been created, and were used in Nivkh material, following the govt-set orthography, by Education Ltd.
Deleting a citation and replacing it with a 'cn' tag is a deletion. Calling that a "lie" doesn't change anything. — kwami (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
you bring your conclusions into practice. We do not know for what reasons and why different variants of alphabets were used, and bring this conclusion into practice because these are "allographs" it looks like OR.
here is an example of how you started a "discussion" you deleted the CN column (deleting CN) Modun (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
By the way, here is an excerpt from a discussion about the Khanty countries, where one of your oponets also thinks that this is OR, and at least he is not being disingenuous and does not call things by their proper names. You are inflating an unproven statement as a “fact”. Modun (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Again, your TRUTH is 'fact', but expert conclusions are 'OR'.
We follow sources. It's as simple as that. If you have RS's to support your claims, great! Let's see them. So far you've provided nothing.
BTW, I just found another example of a Nivx text that uses the original letter forms, this time the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, bilingual Nivx and Russian. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Great, the document was published in the old version of the alphabet. Where is the fact that these letters are allographs? I am a moderator and author of a translation of an article from Russian Wikipedia. Why do I have to prove anything to you?
I asked you a simple question, can you provide another source somewhere where it is said that the indicated letters are allographs? You are constantly trying to give me that this is a "fact". Well, at least provide another source where this is also indicated. Moreover, in the correspondence you indicated, not all linguists agree with this interpretation, but for some reason you ignore this opinion.
You adjust the practice to your convenient picture. This is already OR. Modun (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Here are some other examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (5-ru), 6.
Practically given by linguists, and no one mentions any "allographs" or the use of any other alphabets at the same time. Everyone consciously uses the same alphabets. But for some reason the opinion of these linguists does not interest you. I doubt that these people made any mistake. No one even mentions the interchangeability of some letters. Modun (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
But it's not in the old alphabet, is it? It's the modern alphabet with all of the letters introduced in 1979, namely Ғ Ӻ Р̌ Ӿ Ў. — kwami (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Nivkh alphabets discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

I am ready to try to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A and say that you agree to the ground rules. In particular, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. It is not resulting in any progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors.

The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article, so I will ask a question that I usually ask at the beginning of moderated discussion. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that the other editor does not want to change, or what you want to leave alone that the other editor wants to change. Do not explain the reasons why you want to change the article or leave it unchanged, at this time. We will go into the reasons later, but at this time I am only asking what the issues are, not why there are issues. I understand that there are issues about original research; we can go into them later. However, if there are issues about the reliability of sources, please state them at this time, so that we can ask about them at the reliable source noticeboard.

If there are multiple points in the article that are in dispute, please provide a concise list.

Please state concisely what the content issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. Let's try. Modun (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Summary below. — kwami (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Nivkh)

Summary of Kwami's position: There are two possible pathways, depending on which of us the sources support. Of course, it's possible that RSs might contradict each other. I make three proposals: [a] what I would like to see if I'm correct, [b] what I'd like to see if Modun is correct, and [c] a second issue of using proper alphabetic letters rather than punctuation marks for the Nivx alphabet.
[a] If I'm correct, there are duplicate Unicode characters for several Cyrillic letters used with Siberian languages, according to discussions at Unicode about encoding more of them by linguists who specialize in these languages. Several of these letters are used for Nivx, namely Қ/Ӄ Ң/Ӈ Ҳ/Ӽ. We should reflect the RS that these are allographs, note that the variants were invented by a specific influential textbook publishing company, and note that both variants are found in official documents. Both variants should be listed in the alphabet charts, though for conciseness we should choose one for the examples.
(There is also the letter Ӻ, which should be mentioned, but because Unicode has refused to encode a second variant of it, due to the argument that that is a mere allograph and not a distinct letter, it wouldn't appear directly in the alphabet charts unless we wanted to use SVG images.)
[b] If I understand correctly, Modun claims that Қ/Ӄ Ң/Ӈ Ҳ/Ӽ are not allographs, but instead that there are two distinct Nivx alphabets in current use, with apparently identical orthographic rules. If true, the article would still need to reflect that. If Modun can find RS's for that claim, then we should list the two alphabets side by side. We would need to use SVG's for Ӻ, because there is no Unicode support for it in the second alphabet. Perhaps we could merge the cells of the alphabet table where the letters are identical, assuming the same sorting order. Since we would then have competing RS's about the nature of the distinction, we should note the disagreement. We should still choose one alphabet for the examples.
[c] There is a second issue, that of replacing Nivx letters with punctuation marks. We should instead use proper letters, i.e. ⟨Кʼ Ӄʼ/Қʼ Пʼ Тʼ⟩ and dialectically ⟨Чʼ⟩. Here on WP-en, we use the appropriate Unicode characters for apostrophe-like letters. For example, we use the dedicated letter ⟨ʻ⟩ for the Hawaiian ʻokina, and not the single quotation mark. Similarly with other apostrophe-like letters, regardless of whether the script is Latin, Cyrillic or something else. In this case, the alphabetic letter is U+02BC modifier letter apostrophe. Currently the article uses U+2019 right single quotation mark. These characters look more-or-less the same but can behave quite differently. U+2019 is regularly replaced by the ASCII apostrophe per the no-curly-quotes rule of the MOS. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Explanation: Cyrillic alphabets of many small (and not only) peoples of Russia (mainly in the North, Siberia and the Far East) have changed, revised and clarified many times. Accordingly, many different variations of orthography were formed, which cancelled the old variations. Often changing the alphabet itself. UNICODE has no competence to change or interpret either the composition of existing alphabets or the current orthographies. The UNICODE consortium is based on the existing orthographies of specific languages. Specific alphabets and orthographies of languages ​​in Russia are established and interpreted by the Russian government (or regional ones within their competence).
Law
The indicated letters Қ/Ӄ Ң/Ӈ Ҳ/Ӽ have a separate codification in Unicode, and were not originally "variations" of each other. It seems that no spelling reference book says that the letters in question can be variations of each other. This is an assumption that arose from who knows what. Perhaps this is the reason why the old version of the alphabet is used instead of the new one, because not all the letters of the alphabet were codified.
Some sources indicate that for the Nivkh language (Amur dialect) from 1953 to 1979 there was one version of the alphabet. 2, 3, 4, 5 At least, if we are to believe the Nivkh-Russian dictionary of 1970, authored by V.N. Savelyev and Ch.M. Taksami, it had the following form:
А а Б б В в Г г ӷ ɧ ⱨ Д д Е е Ё ё Ж ж З з
И и Й й Йи йи К к К’ к’ Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Л л М м Н н Ң ң О о
П п П’ п’ Р р Рш рш С с Т т Т’ т’ У у Ф ф Х х Ҳ ҳ Һ һ
Ц ц Ч ч Ш ш Щ щ ъ Ы ы ь Э э Ю ю Я я

And after 1979, modern alphabets already looked like this: 1

А а Б б В в Г г Ӷ ӷ Ғ ғ Ӻ ӻ Д д Е е Ё ё Ж ж З з
И и Й й К к К’ к’ Ӄ ӄ Ӄ’ ӄ’ Л л М м Н н Ӈ ӈ О о П п
П’ п’ Р р Р̌ р̌ С с Т т Т’ т’ У у Ў ў Ф ф Х х Ӽ ӽ Ӿ ӿ
Ц ц Ч ч Ш ш Щ щ ъ Ы ы ь Э э Ю ю Я я

Vladimir Sangi (one of the authors of the alphabet) mentions that the alphabets for both dialects were adopted by the Council of Ministers (government) of the RSFSR in 1979. Perhaps if we could find this document, we would clarify the situation in what form the modern alphabet was adopted.7, 8--Modun (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Nivkh)

Thank you for stating what the content issues are. On the one hand, the statements are not concise. I requested concise statements, but I recognize that that may be difficult. So I have a two-part follow-up request. First, please indicate the sections and paragraphs of the article that you want your changes made to. Second, please see whether you can make your statement of what you want to change more concise. If what you have provided is the most concise possible summary, because the issues are complicated, at least it will help to see what paragraphs are being discussed. A third question is whether either editor has questions about the reliability of a source. If so, we will ask the reliable source noticeboard for an opinion on the source.

Are there any other content questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

First statements by Kwami (Nivkh)

These are the edits I would like reversed.

Section: Cyrillic alphabet

  • In the table, give both variants of the hooked letters, namely ticked Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and curved Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ.
  • In the table, change deprecated curly quotation marks to the proper apostrophe letter ⟨ʼ⟩.
  • [not in diff] Below the table, change "Hooked variants of the letters" to "Rounded variants of the letters", since they're all arguably hooked.

Section: Alphabet Correspondence Table

  • Give both letter variants as above. This only affects cells in the left column, though some of those cells span 2 columns.
  • This time we're changing ASCII apostrophes to ⟨ʼ⟩. This should be done to all Cyrillic alphabets.
  • For the Latin alphabet in the right column, the apostrophe should be the spiritus asper ⟨ʻ⟩. For example, the 'k' row should be: Кʼ кʼ | Къ къ | Kʻ kʻ.
  • [not in diff] Provide a reference for "a 1970 dictionary".
  • Change ⟨ɧ⟩ to "(approximately ɧ)" or similar, since ɧ is a Latin letter, not Cyrillic. The Cyrillic letter is not supported by Unicode, and so can only be approximated. It might instead be replaced by an SVG of both capital and lower case.
  • Change Latin ⟨ⱨ⟩ back to Cyrillic ⟨Ԧ ԧ⟩.
  • ADDENDUM: Given that the only Nivx newspaper agrees with the UNDHR in using er-breve rather than er-caron, I would like that added to the alphabet tables.
  • ADDENDUM: Remove the letter Ў from the tables, unless we have a RS for it, as it isn't in the current alphabet laid out in Janhunen & Gruzdeva (2016) Bringing the orthography of an indigenous language to the digital age: The case of Nivkh in the Russian Far East. Proceedings of the SCRIPTA 2016, Seoul.

— kwami (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

First statements by Modun (Nivkh)

Section: Cyrillic alphabet

  • There's just one thing I want to change. Cancel the part that says that the letters Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ are interchangeable. Not a single textbook says that these letters are interchangeable. I believe that in this regard, we should separately examine why other letters are used in practice. And simply bring it into line with the source that has already been cited.
  • Supplement with two variants of alphabets for different idioms/dialects (depending on the periods when they were adopted separately).

Otherwise, there are no global disagreements.--Modun (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)


Second statement by moderator (Nivkh)

It appears that there is one main content issue. That is whether the letters Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and the letters Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ are interchangeable (allographs) or are different letters. (By the way, do each of those lists of eight letters consist of four upper case letters and four lower case letters?) Is that the main issue? If so, what sources do you have to that effect about these groups of letters (that they are allographs, or that they are different)? Is the question about the reliability of sources, or interpretation of the sources, or are you using different sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by Kwami (Nivkh)

Yes, those are 4 letters, each in capital and lower case, and each in two allographic variants.

Yes, IMO too this is a matter of RSs. There are RSs to support my argument, and AFAIK there are no contrary RSs. At least, none have been presented so far. If Modun can produce RSs, then we would have a conflict of sources; so far AFAICT we do not.

First, there is a series of threads on the Unicode discussion board about these specific letters. Participants include linguists who specialize in the Siberian languages that use them. An example is here: L2/23-015 Comments on CYRILLIC CHE WITH HOOK’s use in Khanty and Tofa (Tofalar) (L2/22-280).

There are multiple experts in those discussions who say that these are allographs, the only dispute being whether they are completely interchangeable or whether one variant is to be preferred. It would be like people arguing over whether double-loop 'g' or script 'ɡ' is correct for English: double-loop 'g' is more common, but some publishers prefer script 'ɡ', and that's what's generally used for literacy material. Even if people strongly prefer one over the other, both are found.

We've had an argument that Unicode and the linguists participating in those discussions are irrelevant. The debate is relevant to Unicode because Unicode doesn't normally encode allographs. The consensus now is that it was a mistake to encode the rounded letters Ӄ ӄ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ. They should only have encoded Қ қ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and left it to the font to handle the letter forms, just as publishers who prefer script 'ɡ' for English typeset it as the regular ASCII 'g' and choose a font that displays it the way they like. Unicode has decided therefore that they will not encode any more of these letters and make a bad situation worse. The situation is bad because words can now be encoded multiple different ways with no difference in meaning. A search engine therefore has to treat Ӄ Ӈ Ӽ as being the same 3 letters as Қ Ң Ҳ or people won't be able to reliably seach in texts or online. Search engines do not always accommodate the idiosyncrasies of small languages, so this can be a problem.

Modun objects that that Unicode source does not address Nivx specifically. However, these letters were created in the 1930s for all of the languages of Siberia, which until then had been written in Latin. Nivx was just one of many, and the same publisher's typefaces are used for all of them. If Nivx were different from the others in this regard, it could be used as an argument for encoding these letters. However, according to sources, none of the languages that use these letters make a distinction between their different forms.

The ref above describes how a single textbook publishing house, Prosveschenie ('Enlightenment' or 'Education'), created an in-house typeface that had rounded forms of these letters. There are no other differences -- that is, these aren't new alphabets. Prosveschenie was highly influential, and their textbooks are how many speakers of these languages learned to read. Therefore there is an idea among some speakers that the rounded Prosveschenie letters are the correct forms. However, Russian government ministries continue to use the original ticked forms. For example, here is the UN Declaration of Human Rights in Nivx and Russian. As you can see, they use the ticked allographs in the title of the doc and throughout the text. The fact that it's the modern alphabet is shown both by the date (2014) and by the fact that it uses all of the new letters that were introduced to the Nivx alphabet in 1979, namely Ғ Ӻ Р̌ Ӿ Ў (thanks to Modun for pointing out that orthographic revision). Again, these new letters appear in both the title and the text.

What we have therefore is a recent, official Nivx text (the official Nivx translation of the UNDHR) that uses the modern orthography with the ticked allographs of these letters, as well as statements by linguists working on the languages of Siberia that a single influential publishing house created the rounded forms, and that the difference is allographic.

— kwami (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I won't reply directly to Modun below, per instructions, but would like to point out one factual error. They say Sami 'distinguishes between the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң".' It does not: The Sami alphabet does not have both Ӈ and Ң in its alphabet. Agreed, the Ң form would be easily confused with another letter Sami does have, but Sami (not a Siberian language) does not use the set of letters that the Siberian orthographies are based on. — kwami (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by Modun (Nivkh)

The Declaration of Human Rights in the Nivkh language, to which my opponent refers, was translated and published not by the Russian government, but by some third-party private organizations. For example, the said declaration was published by a non-governmental printing house with the financial support of "Sakhalin Energy Investment Company LTD", the state did not invest a kopeyka in the publication of this translation of the document.

Secondly, there are also some questions about the quality of such translations. Here is an example of how such publishers released translations: altay, even, shor. Some were published with an unknown version of the alphabet in the corresponding languages, or with a broken encoding. (And this, by the way, is now attached to the UN website)

As for the "common alphabet projects" of the 1930s, in specific languages ​​they may differ from the common projects, since in specific languages ​​the projects are adjusted to the orthography of their language. For example, the alphabets of the languages ​​of the peoples of the Caucasus differ greatly from the "Yanalif" project (new script). In addition, they were published by the Ucpedgiz (Учпедгиз, Uchpedgiz) publishing house, which is the same Prosveshchenie (Просвещение) that my opponent criticizes for allegedly "imposing" its version of letters. But this company is a state publishing house.

Thirdly, there is no more evidence (at least for some reason it has not been additionally presented, which I asked for) that the indicated letters are "allographs". All modern educational materials on the Nivkh language consistently adhere to one version of the alphabet. Sociolinguists monitoring the state of this language also provide this version of the alphabet on their website. Unfortunately, due to inconsistent policy, we now have a situation where for some languages ​​the alphabetic base and composition of letters have changed quite often. For example, in Sámi, the alphabet has changed quite often over the past hundred years. And it also distinguishes between the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң", otherwise it would cause confusion because of the other letter "Ӊ".The source my opponent refers to is simply a working correspondence within UNICODE. It does not consider specific situations, "how acceptable is such a replacement?" (In my example with the Kildin Sámi language) Therefore, I believe that some additional sources are needed to confirm that such a replacement is specifically acceptable in the Nivkh language. Perhaps native speakers simply do not see the difference because they are not specialists in this field and simply proceed from the real situation of their language.--Modun (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

And the territorial feature has nothing to do with it, the spelling was not initially adopted based on the territorial feature. It was adopted for the so-called conditionally peoples of the North (Arctic) (Unified Northern Alphabet). So the criterion is not the peoples' residence in Siberia.
Secondly, you know very well that in the Kildin Sámi language letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are not considered allographs. And if this is so, then where is the guarantee that it is not the same in other languages. That is why I ask you to provide an additional source that specifically in the Nivkh language these letters are supposedly considered allographs. But why do you have only one source available? Other sources point only to indirect signs
Thirdly, with your answer you have already deviated from the instructions. Modun (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)


Third statement by moderator (Nivkh)

I stated what I thought was the issue, and it is:

It appears that there is one main content issue. That is whether the letters Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ and the letters Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ are interchangeable (allographs) or are different letters.

It appears that that is the issue. It further appears that one editor has a source, which is a translation from the Russian original, and the other editor questions the reliability of the translation. Is that a correct statement of the underlying issue? If so, I am asking each editor to identify any source that they are relying on, and for each editor to identify any source that they are challenging. I am asking for each editor to supply details of the sources, so that we can request the reliable source noticeboard to provide an opinion on source reliability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

There are multiple statements, by linguists who work on Siberian languages that use these letters, that the two sets are allographs. An example follows, with statements/quotations from two such linguists:

L2/23-015 Comments on CYRILLIC CHE WITH HOOK’s use in Khanty and Tofa (Tofalar) (L2/22-280).

I can dig up other threads that say basically the same thing.

There are also recent publications that use the 'ticked' forms of the letters for Nivx, such as mining concessions in Sakhalin. Here is the UNDHR from 2014, using the modern alphabet:

UN Declaration of Human Rights (bilingual in Nivx and Russian).

I don't know that Modun challenges the translation itself, just the use of these allographs for Nivx.

I don't think I have anything to challenge. Modun has presented several Nivx texts that use the rounded allographs. However, no-one disputes that those forms are very commonly used. The crux of the matter is that they're equivalent, even if some publishers prefer one over the other. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I just contacted a Russian scholar of Nivx, and they confirmed that these letters "are just allographs." They haven't written about this and doesn't know of anyone who has, but that's now at least 3 linguists who say they're allographs, against zero contrary evidence provided by Modun. — kwami (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

P.P.S. I just heard back from a Finnish linguist who said that "Nivkh is indeed no different from other Northern Eurasian minority languages" in that Ӄ Ӈ Ӽ etc. are "allographs" of Қ Ң Ҳ etc. They said that the Unicode characters Ӄ Ӈ Ӽ etc. are "unnecessary" and that Қ Ң Ҳ etc. should be used instead, or at a minimum that search engines should treat them as the same. He copied an email from a colleague of his:

it was probably a mistake to include different kinds of "descenders", "hooks" and "tails" in the Unicode standard in the first place. It might have been wiser to leave the choice of the descender form to font designers. If you look, for example, at materials published in Nivkh, you will find that they have used fonts with three different types of descenders: 1) j-descender attached directly to the vertical element, 2) j-descender attached to the serif or right side of the vertical element, 3) the standard Russian c/shch-descender.

They attached a photo of the Нивх диф ("Nivx Language") newspaper, which uses the Қ Ң Ҳ forms. Rather than me uploading to Commons, you can check out the newspaper here. As you can see, they continue to use the Қ Ң Ҳ forms, at least as of 2023. I think that settles it, if the Nivx newspaper uses those allographs. (It also confirms the use of a breve rather than a caron over the ar, a variant that can be seen in the UNDHR.) — kwami (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by Modun (Nivkh)

Please understand, I try to comment on the content and point out the shortcomings of the sources provided by user Kwamikagami. This is not against the rules we agreed to.

While I have presented as an example several sources from various educational materials to sociolinguistic data (russian-nivkh nivkh-russian dictionary, nivkh farytail "Faithful Urgun", Stories from the Bible in Nivkh and Russian languages 2, 3, 4, 5 (5-ru), 6 etc) using consistently one variant of the alphabet without indicating any "allographs", another opponent asks why only one source is presented.

Kwamikagami cited a source L2/23-015 where, according to his interpretation, in languages ​​where the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are used, they are "allographs". And for any other languages. Kwamikagami cited a source where, according to his interpretation, in languages ​​where the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are used, they are "allographs". And for any other languages. However, Kwamikagami is a little disingenuous, in that the letter "Ӈ" does not exist in Kildin Sámi language, moreover, in this language the above-mentioned letters are deliberately distinguished as different, i.e. not being allographs of each other. And yes, this source does not address the question of whether these letters are allographs in the Nivkh language.

Moreover, the source dates back to December 2022, and the declaration of human rights in the Nivkh language to which it refers dates back to 2014 (the earliest version is from 2012), i.e. retroactively declares that the letters used are "allographs". As for the quality of the translation of the declarations, my example shows how other translations either use an unknown alphabet (Altai translation), or a translation with a broken encoding, and then how correct is the Nivkh translation of the declaration of human rights in the alphabet? And how correct is it to refer to it then?

Kwamikagami does not answer the question of why speakers had to move away from one version of the alphabet. That's a different question.--Modun (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

P.s. Excuse me, what?! Is there any link to these linguists? Or is this another WP:TRUTH? Without a source, this is just an empty statement, and without any resources and references, it is impossible to continue working in Wikipedia!--Modun (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

P.s.s. My question is, why are native speakers taught to write in one version of the alphabet, but in the end, for some reason, in practice they use another version of the alphabet "with allographs"? Why can't you just attach another confirming source, where it is clearly stated that in a specific language (in this case, Nivkh), both letter versions are "allographs"? Why are you leading another discussion outside the moderated discussion, which you can't even cite as a source? Sorry, neither the moderator of the discussion nor I simply know the subject of your discussion. And besides, why are you referring to only one linguist's opinion?--Modun (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

Since both editors have made relatively long statements, I will have to ask a question. Is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [5] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? I have one question about that document, which is that it doesn't mention the Nivkh language, but is about the Cyrillization of other Siberian languages? So my question will be whether we (Wikipedia) can apply it to the Nivkh language, or whether that would be synthesis amounting to original research?

One of the editors refers to conversations with linguists. Those conversations have no reliability for Wikipedia because they are not verifiable unless the linguists can identify publications, either by themselves or by other scholars, that state what they have said.

One of the editors has made a long statement that asks various questions. Are they offering a source? Are they contesting the reliability of the document mentioned above?

Are there any other source questions, or any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

The single Nivx newspaper uses the Қ Ң Ҳ forms. That establishes that they're used for Nivx.

Modun claims that they create different alphabets, but has not presented a single source to support that claim.

We have a linguist working on Siberian languages, Tapani Salminen, stating that "the WITH HOOK characters represent allographs created by the «Просвещение» (“Enlightenment”, later «Дрофа») publishing house, [...] and search engines in particular should start treating them correctly as variants of the same characters."

This is for the letters themselves, for all languages.

A second, Rustam Yusupov, says, "Practically, people in Russia don't make a difference between hooks and descenders."

Again, in Russia, not with any particular language.

(The third, Arzhana Surun, applies this specifically to Tofalar.)

I checked with other specialists to be sure, but above we have 2 linguists saying they're allographs, and the one-and-only Nivx newspaper using the forms that Modun says aren't used. That debunks their claims, and is not contradicted by anything they present. — kwami (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Modun (Nivkh)

In my opinion, Kwamikagami has provided insufficient evidence to conclude that the letters in question are simply allographs of each other. For example, in the Kildin Sami language, the letters in question are different and are not allographs.

In general, in the formulation in which Kwamikagami wrote it is OR. I would simply change it a little. I do not understand why it is essential for the opponent to emphasize that these are allographs, and not two different alphabets.

As for Rustam Yusupov's comment, I dare to assume that he meant that native speakers simply do not see the difference in practice which version of the letter to use for reading and writing. Replacing these letters with other versions, say, with Latin versions, I do not think that in practice they would see much of a difference either.

We still have not figured out why native speakers learned on one version of the alphabet, but in practice have to use another? In general, I will not repeat myself, initially I would simply change the wording.

P.S. At least write my nickname correctly!--Modun (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)


Fifth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

Neither editor has exactly answered my questions. So I will restate them, almost exactly as I did.

First, is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [6] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? I have one more question about that document, which is that it doesn't mention the Nivkh language, but is about the Cyrillization of other Siberian languages. So my second question will be whether we (Wikipedia) can apply it to the Nivkh language, or whether that would be synthesis amounting to original research?

User:Kwamikagami writes: We have a linguist working on Siberian languages, Tapani Salminen. Who is "we"?

Does User:Modun have any sources that they want to use?

Are there any other source questions? Does either editor want to make any other changes to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Fifth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

For the first question, durably archived statements by experts in the field count as RS. As for the second, it isn't about other Siberian languages but about Siberian languages in general. A few are mentioned specifically, but the allography is not language-dependent.

'We' is us here.

Modun writes, 'in the Kildin Sami language, the letters in question are different and are not allographs.' That statement is false: Kildin uses only one of the letters in question.

Modun asks, 'I do not understand why it is essential for the opponent to emphasize that these are allographs, and not two different alphabets.' Simple: they have provided zero evidence that Nivx currently has two alphabets. That would be not just OR, but contrary to sources.

— kwami (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Fifth statement by Modun (Nivkh)

As for the first source, in my opinion it is not precise enough to draw any conclusions. For example, in it Mr Yusupov, to whom Kwamikagami refers, emphasizes (I quote verbatim) "Technically, the use of ң is wrong.", which Tapani Salminen ignores. In my opinion, if we accept this link as a source, then we should use an additional clarifying source that in a specific spelling of a language such a replacement is acceptable, as you found out in the example of the Kildin Sámi language. Otherwise it will be OR.

There are no other sources except those presented. There are no more questions except for the above, and there are more questions except for correcting the wording in the paragraph. The wording is something like: "In addition to the alphabet used in the textbooks, native speakers use an alternative alphabet with the following letters ..." Or something like that.

P.S. "That statement is false: Kildin uses only one of the letters in question." Well, that is, in other words, they are not considered as allographs.--Modun (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

Neither editor has yet exactly answered my first question. So I will restate it, almost exactly as I did.

First, is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [7] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? The question appears to be whether this source is reliable in saying that the letters are allographs.

Maybe I don't understand the terminology, and I know that I don't know the Cyrillic alphabet(s), but I have some questions that might or might not be applicable. So my second question is for each of the editors to explain to me exactly what they mean by allographs.

As a minor point, Kwamikagami writes: For the first question, durably archived statements by experts in the field count as RS.. That is true, but that depends on how they have been archived. Reports by editors of comments by experts do not count as reliable sources. More precisely, they do not count as verifiable sources. Reports in newspapers, journals, or other reliable media of comments by experts do count as reliable sources. I was disputing what appeared to be their reports of conversations with experts.

I will also ask, perhaps because I don't have a background in the subject matter, what is meant by an alternative alphabet. Modun proposes wording such as:

In addition to the alphabet used in the textbooks, native speakers use an alternative alphabet with the following letters

. If there is an alternative alphabet, with the same number of letters as the primary alphabet, and most of the letters are the same in the two alphabets, but four of them are different, aren't the letters in the two alternative alphabets allographs? Are the letters with the hooks and the letters with the descenders, if those are how the letters differ, used in the same words, or in different words? Do the different letters represent different phonemes? Can both of two variant letters be used in the same word or sentence with a different meaning (in which case they are not alternative letters but more letters)? Are there any rules for when one variant letter is used or when the other one is used? Maybe these are ignorant questions, but the "alternative alphabet" argument sounds to me as though the letters in the different versions of the alphabet are allographs.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

The real issue for me is the lack of any source for Modun's claim that these are two different alphabets.

The expert's words are not based on a non-expert's recall. These are not reports of oral conversation, they are the actual words of the experts writing in, in their responses to other experts and copied and pasted from their emails. There's no more change involved than there would be with an author communicating with any other editor or publisher, where it's normal practice to write in and have them copy from your emails.

Yes, that would make them allographs. No, they are not used differently, nor in different words. The orthography is exactly the same, regardless of which forms are used, and can be handled by changing the font, as one linguist commented. The situation is analogous to using script (primer-style) 'a' and 'g' in English: you wouldn't claim that created an 'alternative English alphabet', and you wouldn't use the dedicated IPA letters for them, you'd just choose a font that styled ASCII 'a' and 'g' that way. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

PS. Modun repeats their claim that 'in the Kildin Sami language, the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are not considered as allographs,' but again provides no source. Kildin does not distinguish those letters, so I don't see what the basis of the claim could possibly be, except that the round allograph Ӈ makes a better visual contrast to the similar letter Ӊ that Kildin does have.
For that argument to work, now Ң and Ӊ would have to be allographs, which contradicts Modun's underlying thesis that Cyrillic doesn't have allographs like these. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Sixth statement by Modun (Nivkh)

In my understanding, an allograph is a sign/letter that is a variation of the same letter, slightly different in its appearance/design from each other. The problem is that most Cyrillic letters were accepted independently of each other in different languages, essentially denoting the same sounds. Nowhere and never was it stipulated that these Cyrillic letters are allographs of each other, but still they were all accepted as separate letters for different languages, and not variations of each other. This is not just "a different font". These letters are used in one font by the way and for some reason they do not change in any way. I would understand if one font had one letter and another variation of the letter was in another font. Sometimes, letters were specially accepted in different appearances to further emphasize the separateness of languages ​​from each other (the Yakut and Dolgan languages ​​can be an example).

The problem is that, apart from the source provided by user Kwamikagami, nowhere else is it stated that these letters are allographs of each other. And for some reason he can't provide another source where the same was stated.

Well, regarding your second question to me, this is just a suggested formulation that can be adjusted and which I explained a little higher. These are not allographs, but different letters, therefore different alphabets. There were cases when for some languages ​​another version of the alphabet was adopted for the same composition of sounds, but with a different composition of letters replacing the old letters with others. Well, for some reason, both my sources and Kwamikagami's sources do not mix both variants of the letter set. On the contrary, they are systematically used separately, as two different alphabets! Yes, they denote the same letters, but in Cyrillic there are other letters that denote the same sounds, but for some reason, according to Kwamikagami, they are not considered allographs, but for some reason these ones are considered.That's the thing, we don't have any sources that explain why such a replacement happened. Honestly, I don't know why it happened. Let me repeat that although these Cyrillic letters were accepted for the same sounds, they were accepted as separate letters, not allographs.

In my opinion, the source is not reliable enough, because it declares the interchangeability of letters in all languages ​​where they are used without considering each individual language and the possibility of replacement in specific languages. For example, in the Kildin Sami language, the letters "Ӈ" and "Ң" are not considered as allographs--Modun (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


Seventh statement by moderator (Nivkh)

I think that I have to restate the original question, and maybe another question with an additional question.

First, is the real issue about the reliability of this source: [8] ? If so, should I ask the reliable source noticeboard about its reliability? The question appears to be whether this source is reliable in saying that the letters are allographs.

I will also restate a minor point. Statements by experts only are considered reliable sources if they are recorded in a reliable and verifiable record. I may have misunderstood, but I thought that one editor had referred to email reports that they had received from an expert. Those are not reliable sources unless the statement by the expert was published in a reliable medium. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I have not misunderstood the policies on reliable sources and verifiability.

If the editors do not give me concise clear answers to the first question, I will post a question at the reliable source noticeboard, but it should not be so difficult for the editors to answer my questions concisely. I have an opinion about the allographs and the alternative alphabets, but that would be original research. So we can only say that they are allographs if a reliable source says that they are allographs, and we can only say that they are alternative alphabets if a reliable source says that they are alternative alphabets.

If there are alternative alphabets, do they mostly have the same letters, or are there two completely different ways of writing the Nivkh language? If there are two alphabets that have mostly the same letters, how do the different letters differ from being allographs? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Seventh statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

No, the problem is not the reliability of the source.

The source is published and durably archived by Unicode. It is compiled from expert statements supplied to Unicode, in response to a request by Unicode for expert opinion about whether these letters are allographs. This is because allography is relevant to encoding: Unicode does not normally assign code points to allographs, and because of these expert responses, Unicode decided to not continue assigning code points to this duplicate set of letters.

Yes, the alternative ways of writing are identical apart from this variation, and whether the rsh (a letter used by no other language) is an er with a breve or with a caron. It's the same orthography: same rules, same letters apart from these: you can change one to the other with find-replace. There is no difference from these being allographs. — kwami (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Seventh statement by Modun (Nivkh)

Can any correspondence be considered a reliable source? If so, in what form? For example, messages in email, messenger or any social network? Would the status or reputation of the people being rewritten in messages make any difference in the reliability of the source? And if it didn't exist? In this case, someone's work correspondence.--Modun (talk) 14:31, 01 October 2024 (UTC)


Eighth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

The Reliable Source Noticeboard has given what I consider an inconclusive answer about the reliability of the source of the Unicode discussion. The respondent said that the document didn't refer to the Nivkh language, which I had also noted. It refers to Siberian languages in general, but Nivkh is not related to any other languages. I see a few possible ways forward.

First, are the other letters, except the four in question, the same in both versions of the Nivkh alphabet? If so, is it accurate to refer to alternative alphabets, or is it more accurate to refer to an alphabet with alternative letters? If one of you has a strict definition of allographs that does not include these letters, is there some other terminology that can be used instead?

Second, since Unicode may have made a mistake with those letters, are there alternate sources, in Russian, that either state that the four letters in question are interchangeable, or that they are not interchangeable?

Third, can a question be asked either at Talk:Nivkh languages or WikiProject Languages or WikiProject Russia for a third party opinion? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Eighth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

Whether a language is related is irrelevant. Basque isn't related to Spanish, but both use the same letters. Ukrainian and Belarusian is quite closely related to Russian, but they use different letters.
Again, all the other Nivkh letters are the same, apart from the curved and angular forms of the diacritic on er.
No, neither description ['alternative alphabets' nor 'an alphabet with alternative letters'] is accurate. This is the same alphabet with the same letters, just as the handwritten-style 'a', 'g' and 't' in English primers are not different letters, but graphic variants of a, gee and tee. Merriam-Webster defines 'allograph' as a letter of an alphabet in a particular shape, and that's what we have here.
Neither of us has been able to find a Russian source discussing the issue. It seems to be taken for granted. Imagine that we had someone insisting that handwritten-style 'a' 'g' 't' in English primers constituted a second English alphabet. It might be difficult to find an official source that they don't, because who would bother saying the obvious?
WikiProject Languages is probably the way to go. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Eighth statement by Modun (Nivkh)

In any case, the rest of the letters are the same in both versions of the alphabet. We can say that additional versions of letters are alternative versions of each other, but not strictly allographs. For example, in Cyrillic there are other letters that are practically used for the same sounds, and I do not understand why Kwamikagami then insists that the letters in question are allographs, and other letters in Cyrillic for some reason are not allographs? What Kwamikagami says about allographs in the Latin alphabet is not entirely applicable to the Cyrillic alphabet, because in the Latin alphabet these allographs DEVELOPED from versions of letters of existing letters, and in Cyrillic they were strictly originally designed for specific languages. Unfortunately, I did not find a source in Russian explaining why this interchange of letters was actually allowed and to what extent it was acceptable? In principle, for native speakers, both versions of the letters are mutually understandable (as would be the case if there was a replacement for other versions of the letters).

I think if they had asked, it seems to me the result would have been the same.--Modun (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)


Ninth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

Maybe some progress has been made, if there is agreement that there is one Cyrillic Nivkh alphabet with alternative letters. If there is disagreement over the use of the term allographs, then maybe that is a terminological disagreement. If so, can the editors work together to develop a compromise statement? Are you willing to work together to try to develop a compromise statement that states what the alphabet is and that there are alternative letters for certain phonemes? That is a yes or no question, although a draft compromise would be welcome.

Also, should I request a third opinion from WikiProject Languages? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Ninth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

Not as you worded it, because according to the only references we have, your summary is incorrect. These are not alternative letters for certain phonemes. There are alternative Unicode characters, because Unicode has spuriously encoded graphic variants as if they were separate letters, but that's a Unicode thing and only a side note to the nature of the alphabet.

I'm happy to work on compromise wording, as long as that reflects our sources as required by WP:RS and other WP safeguards for NPOV editing. — kwami (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Ninth statement by Modun (Nivkh)

Yes, I agree to continue working on a compromise option. We can try, as you said, to ask for someone's third opinion. It wouldn't hurt.--Modun (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Tenth statement by moderator (Nivkh)

Kwamikagami has requested a third opinion from WikiProject Languages. While they are waiting for a third opinion, I will encourage the editors to propose and discuss compromise wordings.

What Unicode script is used to represent the Cyrillic Nivkh alphabet?

This question may or may not be important, but is there an opinion being expressed that the Unicode consortium may have made a mistake in assigning distinct characters for different forms of the letters in question in the Nivkh alphabet? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Tenth statement by Kwamikagami (Nivkh)

The script is just 'Cyrl'.

Yes, there has been a conclusion that encoding these characters was a mistake. However, AFAIK there hasn't been any talk about formally deprecating them. Meanwhile, writers need to be aware of the fact that written Nivkh will differ on which encoding choices are made, and that search engines, alphabetization and the like will need to treat them as being the same letters [that is, as allographs] or else there will be problems with data processing. Unless Unicode formally deprecates the rounded characters, and Nivkh/Siberian fonts accommodate by rendering the ticked letters with the desired rounded forms, there will be continual problems with typesetting and data storage. That's one reason it should be made clear in our article that these are allographs.

Here is my proposed wording of the article. There are several things that Modun does not contest, so I suggest we implement those while the discussion on the rest continues. — kwami (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Tenth statement by Modun (Nivkh)

Honestly, I would not like to comment on the activities of any organization. I think it is not within the competence of any third-party organization to tell any people in what form the alphabet of their language "should be" for purely their own bureaucratic or technical reasons. Actually, we are not satisfying the considerations of any organization here, but working with actual sources of one kind or another.

It seems that I have already roughly imagined in what possible formulation the text could be presented, I would like to see in what formulation Kwamikagami would like to present this.--Modun (talk) 14:10, 10 October 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.

Jessica Nabongo

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Edits to this page are being reverted and covered with incorrect information that can be proved with a simple Google search. The sources I provided are being called self-sourced, including the websites of TEDx, The Detroit News, iucncongress2020.org, https://www.whitehouse.gov.

Bibliography is also removed, even the the subject is a published author, and the publisher is a mainstream publisher (National Geographic). There are articles about it all over the internet, including websites like the Washington Post, Good Morning America, BBC, Conde Nast traveler and more.

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

Talk:Jessica_Nabongo#Note to admins wandering through


How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Revert latest edits

Summary of dispute by Valereee

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

Summary of dispute by ToBeFree

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

Jessica Nabongo discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.

Barb horse

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I reworked the page of the Barb horse, adding more information. However, another user, User:M.Bitton, seems to have issues with the content I added, as well as some elements that existed before my additions, which became problematic after my edits. This is evident from his edit reasoning, where he claims it falls under MOS:FORLANG. If you read it, you’ll see that before he started reverting various parts of the article, the Tamazight/Berber language was allowed to be there—it is present in almost every translation of the page that includes second languages, and has been in the English wiki since 2016. He has also removed anything related to the original breeders, as seen in this edit [9]. He continued to revert several times, as can be seen in [10]. these issues primarily relate to earlier revisions, not my own.

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

I attempted to resolve on the talk page, but out of concern for starting an edit war, and due to his lack of proper engagement with me in the discussion, as shown in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk

  1. October_2024], and removing the warning in his talk page that was removed, adding a strange comment to the reasoning [11] I chose to hope we could reach a proper dispute resolution through a third party.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

An outsider view of the issue will greatly help decide on the subject, as we both have different opinions on how the article should be.

Summary of dispute by M.Bitton

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

Barb horse discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.

Sri Lankan Vellalar

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Some editors added misleading and misinterpreted edits to the article. I have explained to the editor that the content is fringe thing and misleading. In the article's "Mythological origin", the provided sources say A and the editors added B to imply their desired narrative. I simply pointed out that and removed it as it is invalid in the section. The editor has reverted it without listening to my points.


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

[12] [[13]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe a mediator can verify the content's reliability and provide a solution by comparing what's written in the article vs what sources say. The opposite side doesn't even listen to what I say. They consider I'm a newcomer and inferior to them. So my points are invalid according to the editor. I hope a mediator can bring a good solution.


Summary of dispute by Luigi Boy

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

Sri Lankan Vellalar discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
This is my first time coming to this noticeboard, but I've noticed the one discussion you've linked as trying to resolve the dispute before is on a user talk page, and Luigi has only provided one comment on the issue. Unless you've forgotten to provide other venues where you discussed the content, I don't believe we're ready to have this thread happen yet per the notice at the top of this page (previous discussions must be on an article talk page with more than one comment by the involved parties). I have no comment on the actual dispute yet. TheWikiToby (talk) 19:52, 21 October 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.

Taiwan

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

There are huge disputes whether Taiwan a country and it is quite complex. Although there are words to show the complexity in the top para, some Wikipedia editors simplifies it artificially and describes it a country in the first sentence and the short description so that it seems like WP stands with who stand for "country" and it may violate WP:NPOV. They refused to edit because there is a counsensus, but the consensus formation process above looks like the result of polling and they didn't settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached As there is a more accptable description like "de facto country", which has no dispute in the summary of WP:TWRFC.

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

Talk:Taiwan#why_not_add_"de_facto"? Talk:Taiwan/Archive_41#Could_we_add_the_line_"country_with_limited_recognition"? Talk:Taiwan/Archive_40#Find_a_statement_that_better_fits_WP:NPOV,_rather_than_taking_sides. WP:TWRFC

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Incorporate the opinions of everyone, not just those who want to maintain the status quo.

Summary of dispute by Remsense

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

Summary of dispute by Slatersteven

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

Summary of dispute by 103.190.179.16

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

Summary of dispute by Silence of Lambs

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

Summary of dispute by Chipmunkdavis

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

Summary of dispute by Sheherherhers

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

Summary of dispute by ZeehanLin

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

Summary of dispute by NewYearGOT

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

Summary of dispute by Butterdiplomat

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

Summary of dispute by Pataya2527

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

Summary of dispute by Fyunck(click)

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

Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces

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

Summary of dispute by 108.53.191.58

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

Summary of dispute by Horse Eye's Back

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

Summary of dispute by Phlar

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

Taiwan discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
----
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.

Instant-runoff voting

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

There's ongoing multi-way edit-warring over different variants of an article, in a way that doesn't strongly reflect consensus. Lots of different disputes ongoing at the same time, so really the most helpful thing would be to invite someone in to sort out the chaos and help us get back on track discussing the article, instead of getting embroiled in personal attacks or disputes.

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

Talk:Instant-runoff voting#Lead Talk:Instant-runoff voting#Center squeeze Talk:Instant-runoff voting#Comparing to FPP

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

—Temporary lock on article and return to last stable version to prevent further disruption

—Neutral mediator who can help us incorporate best parts of different conflicting versions

—Admin/neutral arbiter to help us identify the main points of disagreement and discuss improvements

Summary of dispute by Joeyconnick

My take is the underlying issue is the conduct of the filing editor, Closed Limelike Curves, and not the content of the article itself. As such, I personally do not agree to moderated discussion of the content. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by David Eppstein

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

This is part of a much broader pattern of disputes on articles on voting systems, centered around the original poster, and should not be considered in isolation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutual majority criterion (2nd nomination) and Template:Did you know nominations/Highest averages method (both resolved but symptomatic). Other potential loci of concern include Talk:Arrow's impossibility theorem/GA2 and a user talk page thread from last August. Also see CLC's characterization of attempts to discuss these issues in a less formal context as vandalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have also had issues with this user (CLC) characterizing all of my attempts to correct their POV pushing as "vandalism," and abusing the complexity & multiplicity of Wikipedia bureaucracy in order to get their way. This user clearly has an agenda that is not guided by academic, professional, or otherwise scientific expertise or experience. Affinepplan (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I have not interacted personally with CLC, but I completely agree with this assessment. Reading Talk:Instant-runoff voting, it becomes quickly apparent that the issue is less with any actual dispute to resolve, and more with the very unilateral kind of editing practiced by this user there and the other pages aforementioned. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 16:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 180 Degree Open Angedre

I honestly have not been around long enough to know the full history of this dispute. The little bit that I am aware of is that Closed Limelike Curves had attempted to move the article from Instant runoff voting to Ranked Choice voting, initially without any discussion. After some reverting back and forth, a discussion was finally made about it at Talk:Instant-runoff voting#RFC: Title Change and at least to me, it seems like a consensus was reached to keep the article's title as instant runoff. As far as I am concerned, that dispute has already been resolved. The only other discussions that I've further participated directly relating to instant runoff voting with Closed Limelike Curves is at the Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States#RFC: Ranked choice or instant-runoff that they had made after their attempt to get the name changed on the main instant runoff page ended with a consensus to keep the name the same, and Talk:Instant-runoff voting#Draft:Instant-runoff voting topic that I started because I found that they had created a separate draft page of instant runoff voting: Draft:Instant-runoff voting , and I wanted clarification on whether or not we were supposed to do our edits there instead of on the main article. All of these discussions would appear to either be resolved or very close to reaching consensus, at least as far as I can tell, with maintaining the status quo being where most of the discussion on the RFC ended and on the Draft article issue, it was recommended that the Draft article be cleared out and replaced with a redirect to the main page as it was a WP:POVFORK (which I don't think has happened yet). None of these topics were apparently the ones Closed Limelike Curves listed as being where the dispute was taking place, so I don't know what else from my perspective that is relevant to say.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180 Degree Open Angedre (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by RobLa

I fear that much of Closed Limelike Curves' (CLC's) editing vis a vis electoral reform articles has been reckless and impatient in nature, and I can see why the unilateral renaming of "Instant-runoff voting" to "Ranked-choice voting" could be the last straw for some folks. I have interacted with CLC both here and elsewhere. My short conflict-of-interest statement: I once was an advocate for "instant-runoff voting"/"ranked-choice voting" and volunteered with the organization now known as "FairVote" back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but I prefer alternative reforms these days. See User:RobLa/COI for more. I frequently wear my bias on my sleeve, but I also strive to maintain NPOV with respect to Wikipedia article editing (especially electoral reform articles). Many editors over the years (e.g. Special:Contributions/RRichie) failed to disclose their COI, which has been problematic on many articles related to electoral reform. CLC has been active with some of the same organizations I've been active with. I do not condone the disruptive way they've been editing Wikipedia, but I appreciate that they seem persistent enough to eventually become a valuable editor on electoral reform articles. I think CLC could benefit from mentoring; possibly from me, but I suspect they'd be more likely to listen to someone else. Any rebuke/retaliation for their editing behavior over the past few weeks/months should be mild and temporary, and should be paired with a serious effort to mentor them and ensure that they remain an active Wikipedia editor. -- RobLa (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rankedchoicevoter

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

Instant-runoff voting discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - The filing editor has notified some of the editors but not all of the editors. All of the editors should be notified, especially in view of the relatively large number of editors being named. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Notes - If the filing editor, or anyone else, wants a temporary lock on the article due to edit-warring, they should make that request at Requests for Page Protection, preferably after reading the boomerang essay. DRN is not a forum for page protection requests.
    • There have been complaints about the conduct of the filing editor. DRN is not a forum to discuss user conduct, and discussion of user conduct at DRN is out of order. Either report user conduct at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, or ignore the user conduct issues.
    • We can begin moderated discussion of article content if at least one other editor agrees to moderated discussion of article content, AND there are no other discussions about this article or any of the editors in any other forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'd like to close this request for now, since it seems like the most relevant participants aren't interested in dispute resolution. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:30, 24 October 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.

Talk:2024 United_States_presidential_election# Lead_section_of_2024_United_States_presidential_election

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed 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.the article is biased and it needs update of WP:NPOV. However the user Quitlook didn't talk to me before closing the official RFC within two days without consensus from the users who support RFC and many others who raised concerns of Biased Lead. I see the user's closing RFC without agreement is disruptive editing.

  • Although there were several discussions about biased lead part however there was no consensus and it's first RfC to resolve the based laed part.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Summary: Can an RfC for improving neutrality in a major US presidential election article be reopened after it was hastily closed by a specific user?

1. There were many opinions that the biased article in the US presidential election article should be improved.

2. An RFC for improving neutrality was started, and when opinions for improving neutrality came in, it was hastily closed less than two days after the RFC was created.

3. I would appreciate it if you could help improve Wikipedia articles by reopening the relevant RfC so that the opinions of users who want to address neutrality can be posted.

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

  • The reason for initiating the RFC was that several users on the Talk Page continued to raise issues with the neutrality of the Lead part of the document, but other users demanded that it be left as a list of only one candidate's list criticisms, so this was attempted to be resolved through the RfC
  • Talked via the RFC page and resolved the issued raised by another user.
  • I also updated the summary history from the beginning of the RFC to clarify the issues.


How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would appreciate it if you could help improve Wikipedia articles by suggestion of resolution for this issues.

E.g. Create another RFC so that users can post comments addressing neutrality.

Summary of dispute by Qutlooker

The user here has opened multiple discussions about the lead in the mentioned article complaining that the lead was POV pushing. Many editors had discussed in these discussions with all of them coming to the same conclusion. The editor then proceeded to open an RfC after their previous discussions had been closed. If the user had looked at the banner at the top of the talk page he would’ve seen that Reopening previously closed discussions that came with the same consensus is disruptive editing. Qutlooker (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that this user has NOT talked about the issue with me on a talk page Qutlooker (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United_States_presidential_election#(RFC)_Lead_section_of_2024_United_States_presidential_election

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.

Russian Invasion of Ukraine

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute involves whether North Korea should be added to the infobox of the "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" article, specifically in the "supported by" section. This debate has become very extensive and repetitive, dragging on for weeks without resolution, despite many credible sources indicating North Korean support for Russia. Multiple reports from reliable sources, including intelligence agencies in South Korea, Ukraine, and the U.S., confirm the presence of North Korean personnel aiding Russian forces. This evidence overwhelmingly supports adding North Korea in the “supported by” section, yet some editors insist on direct combat proof, which has stalled the discussion. Moderation is requested to expedite a resolution, as continued delays are preventing the article from reflecting current developments accurately. Note: In the Users involved section, I have put every single person who has talked in the dispute, the four most recently active users are: Me(rc2barrington), haha169, slatersteven, scuba, and adam8410

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#north_korea_should_be_listed_as_an_ally_of_russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Arbitrary_break https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Clarification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Consensus_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Consensus_vote_on_'Supported_by_or_Co-belligerent'

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'm requesting this be resolved through forced moderator intervention or some other way. I personally think that North Korea should be added to the info box in the supported by section because I have yet to see any opposition to that; there is only opposition to adding it as a belligerent since there is apparently no reliable source saying that North Koreans have been involved in combat. However, this should have been added a long time ago in the' supported by' sec.

Summary of dispute by haha169

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

Summary of dispute by Slatersteven

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

Summary of dispute by Mr rnddude

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Note: GSRUSUKR remedy A1 precludes non-extended confirmed editors from participating in any project internal discussions concerning the Russo-Ukrainian war topic area. This includes noticeboard discussions. This request was filed by a non-EC editor. There is now also an RfC open on the talk page, that also precludes participation of non-extended confirmed editors. I leave to the DRN volunteers to determine how to handle this request. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Update: I missed that the RfC opener is also a non-extended confirmed editor. This RfC has been closed on procedural grounds. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gonzafer001

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

Summary of dispute by NotQualified

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

Summary of dispute by Cinderella157

Per WP:GSRUSUKR, non-ECP users may not participate in community discussions. This includes opening them. This was opened by a non-ECP user. Accordingly it may be closed/deleted by any editor and should be. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Scuba

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

Summary of dispute by Hammer128

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

Summary of dispute by Pithon314

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

Summary of dispute by TylerBurden

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

Summary of dispute by JDiala

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

Summary of dispute by XavierGreen

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

Summary of dispute by SaintPaulOfTarsus

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

Summary of dispute by Lazesusdasiru

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

Summary of dispute by Katangais

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

Summary of dispute by Nick.mon

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

Summary of dispute by Bitspectator

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

Summary of dispute by Sinclairian

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

Summary of dispute by Flemmish Nietzsche

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

Summary of dispute by PhilosophicalSomething

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

Summary of dispute by Adam8410

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

Summary of dispute by Mikrobølgeovn

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

Summary of dispute by Czello

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

Summary of dispute by Irisoptical

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

Summary of dispute by Swipe4004

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

Summary of dispute by Stranger43286

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

Summary of dispute by Great Mercian

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

Summary of dispute by WeaponizingArchitecture

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

Summary of dispute by SaintPaulOfTarsus

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

Summary of dispute by ManyAreasExpert

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

Summary of dispute by VR

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

Summary of dispute by JasonMacker

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

Summary of dispute by Mhorg

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

Summary of dispute by Sinclairian

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

Summary of dispute by Swipe4004.

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

Russian Invasion of Ukraine discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.

NDIS

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I have proposed that the disambiguation page NDIS be pointed to National Disability Insurance Scheme as a primary topic. I have come to this proposal based on WikiNav data, PageView data, English literature occurances/Google Ngram data, and the prevalence and importance of the insurance scheme in both local and international sources including academic sources. None of the other articles linked to in the disambiguation page appear to have any close level of significance, prevalence or viewership.

As a chronology, I boldy implemented the primary topic and created NDIS (disambiguation) in early May 2024, which was then boldly reverted in early September 2024. I brought the topic to the article talk page to discuss with the reverter and provide my reasoning, and pinged the user. After a week of no discussion, I re-instituted the change under WP:SILENCE and notified the user. Three weeks later, the user reverted the change again, and replied citing perceived global significance issues and that determining a primary topic for a disambiguation page required a requested move process. I placed discussion notifications on three of the four articles linked to by NDIS ([14], [15], [16]; the fourth article was not notified as it is a stub article for a non-maintained piece of software with questionable WP:NOTABILITY, no talk activity in >10 years, and no meaningful content additions/changes/removals in ~7 years), none of which have resulted in any other editors raising issues or objections. After continued back-and-forth on the article talk page, we cannot come to an agreement on the relevant policy, let alone its implementation or the actual merits of either 'side'.

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

[17]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide clarification as an independent third-party regarding: 1. The relevant procedure/policy that applies for primary topic redirects of an existing disambiguation article 2. Advise and/or education to all parties regarding ongoing consensus building 3. If there has been any oversight or misunderstandings by, or caused by, myself

Summary of dispute by Iciebath

Once it became clear that ItsPugle and I were not going to reach an agreement, I suggested that he initiate a WP:RM. What was originally done in May was the contents of NDIS were moved to NDIS (disambiguation) with the former then set NDIS as a redirect to National Disability Insurance Scheme, was moving an article. Technically articles weren't moved, but cut and pasted which I gather is not the desired way of going about things, but the end result was the same.

My underlying feeling is that ItsPugle just doesn't want to go down the RM path that would have a higher chance of other editor involvement, and instead comes up with excuses such as:

I'm not going to slap a giant RM template on the article to potentially "attract a higher level of editor involvement" when notices have already been placed on four different article talk pages and the change had been implemented for three weeks without issue until your objection.

I don't know why there is the resistance, other than maybe RM has not delivered the editor's preferred outcome in the past, e.g. when an attempt to move Government of the Australian Capital Territory was overwhelmingly rejected. Iciebath (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

NDIS discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

A large paragraph on the page titled “May 9 riots and crackdown” is the issue. There is already a main article on the May 9 riots so the section should summarize it. There used to be one paragraph talking about the riots and the government’s view, while one paragraph talking about the PTI’s view and crackdown, balanced. But user SheriffIsInTown added a large paragraph talking about a court order against PTI’s founder which is clearly not notable in my view as the section the “May 9 riots and crackdown” section is under is about PTI’s history. The entire section should talk about significant moments in PTI’s history but spends a whole paragraph on one court order by an Anti terrorism court issued by one judge. The paragraph seems to be almost the length of the source itself and is not notable in my view, while SheriffIsInTown has argued that it is notable. I have argued for the removal or heavy trimming of the section while Sheriff has only agreed to trim it slightly.

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

Talk:Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf#May_9_riots_ATC_order

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Providing a third opinion is needed to decide whether to remove the information. Discussions between me and SheriffIsInTown usually result in stalemates so a third opinion to decide an action is necessary.

Summary of dispute by SheriffIsInTown

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

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.

15.ai

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

the dispute is whether 15.ai is abandoned or not.

15.ai is an ai text-to-speech program that has been down for ~19 months. the article said that 15.ai was under maintenance until thought 1915 edited the article to say 15.ai was abandoned, and rocketknightx edited the article back to the status quo. i and rocketknightx edit warred over this, and i apologize for that.

those who support saying that 15.ai is abandoned include myself, thought 1915, and superstain. those who support saying that 15.ai is under maintenance include rocketknightx and vexvector.

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

Talk:15.ai § Editing with respect to the last two topics of Past Tense

Talk:15.ai § The project is not abandoned.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

by determining whether the article on 15.ai should say it is operational or abandoned.

Summary of dispute by Thought 1915

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

I am so sorry if this comes off as biased or too casual; this is my first time having disputes happen. After seeing multiple talk pages in the article that suggested changing the article to past tense, I applied the change. This, seemingly, started an edit war against one who wanted to revert my change and those who were fine with my change. Talk topics have been attempted to solve this issue, one started by me after realizing that an edit war may occur without intervention. At this point, the reasoning for keeping the site in the present tense and not calling the site abandoned is that there are not enough citations and a sentiment that the site could come back up. This sentiment is only felt by one editor, as everybody else involved that I see listed in this dispute holds the opposite opinion. The opposite opinion that has been quite common among the editors involved is that the site indeed has been abandoned. This is because of a lack of contact for over 18 months, the domain being used to host completely unrelated projects (see tf2[dot]15[dot]ai), and the fact that multiple other sites allegedly made by 15 (see pony[dot]best) have been found. After third-party intervention, a decision to stop editing until a consensus was reached occurred. Some of the editors claim that RocketKnightX may have a bias that prevents neutrality in the article. Checking RocketKnightX's user contributions can help a third party conclude this general sentiment. There is one point I would like to highlight in this dispute: there has been no contact or mention of 15[dot]ai for more than a year; the site no longer appears on a search engine. If we were to classify the site as abandoned or under maintenance, how would it be cited? Would the amount of time without any contact and the usage of the domain for different projects be enough to consider the site abandoned? Once again, I apologize for any bias in my statement.

Summary of dispute by RocketKnightX

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

Okay. So, 15 said "I've been alerted that there appears to be a coordinated attack against my project by another service, with affiliated groups spreading rumors that I had abandoned 15.ai, or that I had placed it behind a paywall, or that I had killed myself, etc. I assure you that I am still the same stubborn person I was three years ago when I first launched my project – please don't believe these malicious lies. I'm doing the best I can, and I'll always continue to do so." They tried to mean that the project was not abandoned and is in under maintenance, but some people still not convinced due to waiting too long. The only reason why the project isn't up is that it needs to be perfect, as quality is more important than quantity.

Summary of dispute by SuperStain

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

My involvement in this dispute began some months ago when I noticed that an editor had been reverting edits made to the 15.ai page that could be interpreted as painting the website in a negative light. After noticing these edits, I took it upon myself to clean up the page, removing irrelevant and potentially biased passages, fixing certain spelling errors and adding archived references. A few months later, I returned to the article's talk page to provide insight into a discussion being held on the status of 15.ai, some of which now serves as the foundation for arguments in favour of classifying the website as abandoned. A few weeks later, I checked on the article again and found that an edit war had arisen between two editors, one believing the site to be abandoned and the other holding out hope for the site's return. Feeling that 15.ai had been down for long enough to justify classifying the website as abandoned, I edited parts of the page in order to counteract revisions made to label the site as "under maintenance". Conscious of potential 3RR violations, I made sure to limit myself to two of these edits before moving on with my day. Echoing Thought 1915's feelings, I believe RocketKnightX to be biased in favour of 15.ai. However, I also feel that another editor, HackerKnownAs, who I alluded to previously in my statement, to hold similar biases, as their account was created the same day as many of the articles sourced, and their contribution history seems to be comprised exclusively of edits made to protect the website's image and to remove mentions of competing websites/15.ai's ongoing downtime. I feel the best course of action here would be to classify 15.ai as abandoned, and to investigate the article's overall edit history to determine how much of this page was written with bias.

Summary of Dispute by VexVector

To be clear, I do not, “support saying that 15.ai is under maintenance”. This is a misrepresentation of my involvement. I merely added a citation-needed tag to the claim that the site was abandoned, and reverted an edit which removed the tag without resolving the need for it. If the site is claimed to be abandoned, then it should be a claim which is cited or explained somehow. The page did not have any rationale for considering it abandoned. What is the cut-off point? Is there præexisting policy on this matter? An explanation is all I ask for, along with the explanation being included on the public page.

15.ai discussion

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (15.ai)

I am ready to act as the moderator for this content dispute. Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you are willing to follow the ground rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise.

It appears that the main question is whether to characterize the web site as abandoned or defunct, or whether to characterize it as under maintenance. Is that correct? In Wikipedia, we report what reliable sources have said, including about the (lack of) availability of the site. So my first question to the editors is whether they can refer to any reliable sources that comment on the status of the web site. If so, please identify the source(s).

The purpose of dispute resolution, including moderated discussion, is to improve the article. So my second question is whether there are any other portions or sections of the article that you want to change that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or any portions of the article that you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

You are correct in what the main question is about the categorization of the website as either abandoned/defunct or under maintenance.
Directly answering your first question, we were unable to find specifically reliable sources regarding the status of 15[dot]ai. We do have alledged sites made by 15, tweets that 15 had said about the status (and an implied release timeframe that has already passed), and the current usage of the domain 15[dot]ai under tf2[dot]15[dot]ai, but I assume that these do not qualify as reliable sources.
As for your second question, a new talk topic on the page asked whether the CMU Dictionary section of the page was necessary, although the topic is too new for any consensus to be formed yet.
If any editors have information that contradicts my statement, please correct me. I may make mistakes by accident. Thought 1915 (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I forgot to answer you on the first point, sorry. I will, to my best knowledge, try to follow the stated ground rules. Please let me know if I made a mistake though. Thought 1915 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
i can follow the ground rules. i have nothing to add to thought 1915's summary. ltbdl☃ (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I personally very much think that 15.ai has definitely been abandoned and the article needs to be updated. It's not gotten any changes within the last few months and I haven't seen any updates about it. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 11:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (15.ai)

First statement by moderator (15.ai)

If reliable sources do not say that the web site has been abandoned, we should not say that the web site has been abandoned, but we can state what the reliable sources report about the status of the web site. Stating that it has been abandoned would be original research. However, stating that it is under maintenance would also be original research unless that has been reported by a reliable source.

Is there any disagreement about any other content issue? Are there any continuing issues about how to report the status of the web site? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This goes in tandem with considering the site abandoned, but, the tense of the article seemed to be disputed. I placed it under past tense under the suggestion of the talk topics above me; the story of how that went is the same as considering the site abandoned.
As there have been no reliable sources on both considering the site abandoned or under maintenance, I wonder how it should be classified under these circumstances. Thought 1915 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it's very hard to find an actual reference that would document that the site is abandoned. We might need to do a [citation needed] instead. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 11:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I would be fine with this. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Nice. Anyone else up for [citation needed] in place of a reference? Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 00:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
[citation needed] with what? ltbdl☃ (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Since it's hard to find a reference, it might just be easier to put a [citation needed] in place of it. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 11:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
placing a [citation needed] next to "is" is a little silly. ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
All I am saying is we just need to find some way to incorporate saying that the 15.ai platform has been abandoned, and write a [citation needed] at the end. I don't really care how it is placed, I guess it just needs to follow WP:MOS Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 11:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

First statements by editors (15.ai)

Second statement by moderator (15.ai)

Is there agreement now that the web site should be reported as abandoned, and that a {{citation needed}} note should be used for that statement? If so, do we have agreement, and is this issue resolved? If not, please state what the remaining disagreement is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that reporting the site as abandoned and simply placing a *citation needed tag* is appropriate. I know of one editor who may oppose this decision, but said editor has not participated in any part of this dispute discussion yet. If I see that the majority of editors also share this sentiment, I feel that we could then talk about how to properly edit the site as abanoned and properly placing a *citation needed tag*. Thought 1915 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
they’ll definitely oppose this decision, but i agree to this. ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I can only think of one singular editor who may oppose this. May you please elaborate? Thought 1915 (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
singular they ltbdl☃ (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I apologise for the confusion. Should we wait for their confirmation, or should something else be done? Thought 1915 (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
i'll notify them again, let's see if they answer. ltbdl☃ (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Im the person who proposed the [citation needed] replacement. We could for example place in the text, like this:

As of date, it is unknown if 15.ai is abandoned or not, as no activity has been seen in a long time. [citation needed]
(this is an example only)
in the event that it may not be suitable to just blatantly place a [citation needed], To prove that this is abandoned, since we can't add original research as of WP:NOR, we might be able to use discussion threads as seen on Reddit and these other websites. I have provided the links to them below.
Link one
Link two
Link three
Link four
Link five


In my opinion, this one below might be the best as it is independent.You should still see the above references.
Link 6. I definitely think that a reliable source is needed, so here are some examples if the [citation needed] is not appropriate. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 02:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I worry that the referenced sites may not seem reliable, but I might be wrong. I feel more comfortable with using the *citation needed tag*. Thought 1915 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Got it. Keep me updated if we see any good references. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 00:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry if this is informal, but I believe that we should try to finalise how we should edit the Wikipedia page as we search for sources. I like your proposal of a citation needed tag, and it seems many do as well. How should we go about finalising a decision or making the proposal more concrete? Thought 1915 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Before we close this, we also could use the [verification needed] tag instead of [citation needed] (just saying before we finalize) Cooldudeseven7 tea talk 00:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

RocketKnightX made a response on their talk page:

Okay. So, 15 said "I've been alerted that there appears to be a coordinated attack against my project by another service, with affiliated groups spreading rumors that I had abandoned 15.ai, or that I had placed it behind a paywall, or that I had killed myself, etc. I assure you that I am still the same stubborn person I was three years ago when I first launched my project – please don't believe these malicious lies. I'm doing the best I can, and I'll always continue to do so." They tried to mean that the project was not abandoned and is in under maintenance, but some people still not convinced due to waiting too long. The only reason why the project isn't up is that it needs to be perfect, as quality is more important than quantity. RocketKnightX (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

ltbdl☃ (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Responding to the response made by @RocketKnightX:
The website has not even a placeholder page and its subdomain (tf2[dot]15[ai]) is being used for something completely unrelated. Although having absolutely no contact for 1.5 years is part of the reasoning, I feel that the subdomain usage should be a reason to consider.
I appologise if this breaks formality, but saying "only reason" in the last sentence severely oversimplifies the complexity of things. The last clause does not seem to have a relation to the topic. I would also like to mention that 15 has lied before; 15 went onto Twitter before finishing the site despite saying otherwise (the Wikipedia page logo was 15's former profile picture).
This is the responce to the suggestion by @Cooldudeseven7:
As for the *verification needed tag*, I ask if linking the subdomain and 15's other unrelated projects would be sufficient as verification. I personally prefer the *citation needed tag*, as I feel that the main problem is the reliability of the aquired sources for WIkipedian standards. Thought 1915 (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Alright! It seems that [citation needed] fits better.
I also saw some other things:
No source code in the website. At the moment, it's just a blank HTML page that has no actual content. the tf2dot15dotai website seems to be something related to a platform named "sourcebans", so it definitely isn't related to 15.ai and might just be the ban page of a team fortress two server. Cooldudeseven7 tea talk 11:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Wait a minute, I see this in the article:
In September 2022, a year after its last stable release, 15.ai was temporarily taken down in preparation for a future update. As of October 2024, the website is still offline, with 15's most recent post being dated February 2023.
Does this already count as "abandoned?" it has a reference, too.
Due to the recent posts by 15, we might have to instead write in the article
"Although there is supposedly supposed to be an update, due to the long time period, it is usually thought that 15.ai is abandoned.[citation needed]". We don't have to put it in the way I just put it- just an example. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 tea talk 11:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I feel that it could if used alongside another tweet 15 said regarding an implied timeframe. But for "it is usually thought" in the text you suggested, I could place a couple user-generated content with this sentiment to back this statement up. I simply worry if citing user-generated content for opinions is considered reliable in terms of the types of citations that should be done. Thought 1915 (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I have no problem with the tweet idea either, however it might be hard to find a notable one. Cooldudeseven7 tea talk 14:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I mean, very little independent sources regarding 15 are currently going around besides Tweets, the domains, and the sources you showed. This thread is getting quite long, so I plan on using the Editor Statement space to propose how the page should be edited once I have time. Thought 1915 (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (15.ai)

I, Thought 1915, would like to propose the following:
The article will be in the past tense since the website currently has no content. The state will be placed as abandoned with the [citation needed] tag added at the end, since most of the sources that prove this are either original research or not reliable yet. The [citation needed] tag will only be temporary until a reliable source proving it can be found.
For context behind stating this, I propose directly citing user sentiments as the reason and a lack of any response (this can include Tweets mentioning 15[dot]ai, the possible user threads shown, and the other projects being worked on.) As additional context, the subdomain and the side projects can be used as context and cited.
I apologize if this seems like a stretch, but I hope this proposal can help bring a consensus. I would also like to mention that an editor on one of the disputed page's talk pages made a very good point on how 15's work on other projects is good proof that the site is abandoned. If it would be possible to use the side projects as citations for the abandonment please tell me.
I also attempted to integrate all of the suggestions by the volunteer and other editors when creating this proposal, so please tell me if you have problems with the proposal or if you would like changes to it.
I hope for the best as Thought 1915 (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

This message is a copy of the message I sent to the moderator down below.
Instead of the direct statement of "the site is abandoned" We should take the idea of trying to say a text that I said earlier.
Personally, I think this text below shows that 15.ai may not be fully abandoned, but it is just thought by the community.
Although there is supposedly an update coming, due to the long time period, it is usually thought that 15.ai is abandoned.[citation needed]
This text shows how 15.ai may still be alive but it is just thought that it is abandoned.
Cooldudeseven7 tea talk 11:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (15.ai)

The filing editor has been blocked indefinitely. However, there are remaining editors who originally said that the site was abandoned, and who said that it was under maintenance. So we can continue to work toward a version of the article that states that the site is abandoned, but is marked with a {{citation needed}} tag, or toward some similar compromise.

Are there any specific questions about how to revise the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Instead of the direct statement of "the site is abandoned" We should take the idea of trying to say a text that I said earlier.
Personally, I think this text below shows that 15.ai may not be fully abandoned, but it is just thought by the community.

Although there is supposedly an update coming, due to the long time period, it is usually thought that 15.ai is abandoned.[citation needed]

This text shows how 15.ai may still be alive but it is just thought that it is abandoned. Cooldudeseven7 tea talk 11:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
This is a fair compromise that I am fine with and that I feel that others would be fine with as well. I cannot speak for others however, so if anybody objects this, please say so.
For the "it is usually thought...." bit of the compromise, I assume that citing user-generated content showing the sentiment was decided against. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thought 1915 (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Alright! When do you think we should finalize the change if no one objects Cooldudeseven7 tea talk 12:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I would say the same day that one of the files on the page deletes itself for non-fair use (24 October, 2024). For confirmation, keep present tense, and add small section regarding community sense of abandonment, correct? Thought 1915 (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I feel this would be the best way forward. SuperStain (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (15.ai)

Fourth statement by moderator (15.ai)

The discussion between the editors about how to word the article seems to be constructive. At the start of this moderated discussion, I said not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, and that rule has been ignored, but has been ignored usefully, so I am suspending that rule. Please continue the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)


Fourth statements by editors (15.ai)

I agree to the rules that were proposed at the onset. I had been invited to participate in this DRN by one of the involved editors due to my activity on other sections of the page, so I just want to state something real quick. I initially did not want to get involved in this case, but this feels to me like a very clear case of WP:PEDANTRY from the single opponent to declaring the site abandoned. The creator of the project has demonstrably worked on other projects, the site has been down for over a year, and the site is excluded from being archived, so we cannot even direct readers of the encyclopedia to an archived version of the site. Furthermore, the domain is being used to host a TF2 server. We do not need "citation needed" tags to state the obvious. It is self-evident per Wikipedia:Citation_needed#When_to_use_this_tag When adding a tag, ask yourself:... Is the knowledge so self-evident that it really does not need to be cited at all?. If the owner magically returns and the project comes to life again, then it can be changed just as easily from abandoned. Abandoned things can be reclaimed, afterall. But also, I invite editors to ask yourselves why this even matters when per Template:Infobox_website the current_status tag is optional. If you all do not agree that a citation needed tag isn't needed because it is self-evident that the website is abandoned, then I propose instead to just remove current status entirely rather than throw "Citation Needed" in the infobox and be done with the problem. See also the incredibly relevant MOS:INFOBOXCITE References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes... or if the information is obvious. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If I understoof you correctly, your suggestion was to simply remove that "Current Status" part from the infobox, correct? I'd be fine with that.
You also mentioned Pedantry for the citation of abanonment. Since most of the editors have seemingly been fine with the origninal edit I preformed before (with the exception of the one you claim to do Pedantry), I honestly forgot why a dispute discussion occured.
I appologize for the confusion, but @SuperStain and @Cooldudeseven7, please remind me what this dispute was about, if not about the state of the site, which already is considered clear by many of the editors and talk page topics. Because I feel that I am missing something, I will create a sanbox in my user page of what I believe the problems to be. I saw this method used in the other dispute resolutions and feel that this method will allow me to be specific in my questions and concerns without me faultering over what words to say. Please tell me if there are any problems with my approach in sharing my confusion. Thought 1915 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Here is what the description says:

15.ai is an ai text-to-speech program that has been down for ~19 months. the article said that 15.ai was under maintenance until thought 1915 edited the article to say 15.ai was abandoned, and rocketknightx edited the article back to the status quo. i and rocketknightx edit warred over this, and i apologize for that.

Basically, this is talking about whether or not 15.Ai is abandoned as well as if this should be incorporated into the text.
Thank you, Cooldudeseven7 tea talk 00:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I am referring to the fact that editor Rocketknightx has used language implying a personal dislike of the notion that the site is abandoned, followed by insistence in a citation of some sort to prove the site was abandoned. WP:PEDANTRY defines pedantry as Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification Adding emphasis. Given statements like Special:Diff/1249204103 this entire dispute seems to stem from the fact that one editor feels passionately that the project isn't abandoned, and potentially has some sort of personal stake in it Something tells me 15 will make the project not just perfect, but something new and interesting isn't enough to refute the plainly obvious fact that the site is abandoned.
If I understoof you correctly, your suggestion was to simply remove that "Current Status" part from the infobox, correct? I'd be fine with that.
As alternative to including "citation needed", yes, just removing "Current Status" from the infobox is a better choice since we are generally recommended against including citations in infboxes per MOS:INFOBOXCITE, and there is no requirement that the infobox has "current status". The dispute began over edit warring over the infobox, which was changed from "Under Maintenance" to "Abandoned. The Edit Warring party on one side has been indeffed for a different offense, and the other edit warring party hasn't participated in this dispute resolution in 3 days now.
Frankly, the consensus seems to be that the site is obviously abandoned, and since it is self-evident there isn't a need for a citation. Don't get me wrong, the compromise you all worked out is a great example of how things should work, but it might be an entirely unnecessary compromise at this point. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I can tell you that many of the other editors feel the same way about the user mentioned. I feel a bit conflicted about the compromise personally as well; neither side that caused the original dispute can (for one blocked editor's case) or had (in the one you mentioned by name) given explicitly agreement on the compromise to an extent I can properly feel that sentiments over the page are properly solved, and one editor's (the one mentioned by name) only interaction with the dispute has been through the user statement, saying things that had already been said before in the talk topic pages.
In terms of what I would have personally preferred to do, I would have done what the talk pages suggested: call the site abandoned and place it into past tense (but that is what caused the edit war). Thought 1915 (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree I personally feel the same way about this user Cooldudeseven7 tea talk 11:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I would have done what the talk pages suggested: call the site abandoned and place it into past tense (but that is what caused the edit war)
At which point that becomes a user conduct issue which can be taken up at the relevant edit warring noticeboard. It can also be made note of that dispute resolution has been attempted, and while voluntary, the user in question didn't participate in a meaningful manner. That said, the edit war took place between an indeffed user and a user who isn't participating in the DRN. I don't think we should be making consensus-altering choices on the basis of appeasement to a single party just because they declare WP:IDONTLIKETHAT and now we're concerned they'll edit war over it, is my general point. If you want to double-down on whether or not there is a consensus, we could attempt to run an RfC on the question of whether to depict the site as abandoned or under maintenance, but it feels like that would just be a waste of editor time when there's a single person who opposed the change. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 22:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree! The complete removal of the area might help, however there are a few eye-catching things in the article that might conflict with the article

In September 2022, a year after its last stable release, 15.ai was temporarily taken down in preparation for a future update. As of October 2024, the website is still offline, with 15's most recent post being dated February 2023.

This text may be malformed and shaped into abandoned just like the infobox

I also propose the idea of saying that the community might think that it is abandoned in some form of footnote or side text. Cooldudeseven7 tea talk 11:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I would prefer side text if this option is done, as footnotes are generally rare in Wikipedia articles and I believe that there is enough text and information regarding the community's sentiment that a side text could be feasibly done.
An example of how the side text could go is as follows (taken from my sandbox):
After 1.5 years of waiting, much of the community has felt that 15 had abandoned the project due to a lack of contact, 15's usage of the domain for other projects [something about tf2.15.ai would go here], and working on other activities. The community surrounding this projects believes it to be abandoned. Thought 1915 (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
the tf2 15.ai site seems to be down? this seems to be merely a Team fortress two server management platform. (unless im wrong) Cooldudeseven7 tea talk 14:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Not wanting to get into potentially outing territory, but the TF2 Server is very much alive. The aforementioned tf2 URL shows activity related to the TF2 server in question and serves as a backend for logging in, banning users, and appealing bans. The TF2 server which it seemingly manages is /mlp/ - Pony on TF2. I agree that the body text should represent that the community think it is abandoned. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 22:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Agreed Ah, seemed that it was probably my network. Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 22:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
About 20 hours remain before the dispute resolution finalisations occur. Are there any closing statements that anybody would like to make before a green light to apply the dispute compromise occurs? Thought 1915 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Alright, just double checking. We are removing "current status" from the infobox and then adding a footnote that says the community thinks that 15.ai is abandoned? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 11:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I thought that we would be doing side text (basically a small section added). Besides that, correct. Thought 1915 (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
A footnote is when you have a small mark like a [a] here and a note at the bottom if i'm right at least for wikipedia. Do you want a footnote or a small section added? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 12:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I would prefer a small section. Thought 1915 (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Would you mind placing one on my talk page just to see how we can format it into the text? Also, is this Accepted by everyone? Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 13:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
It appears that the dispute is close to concluding. Shall we begin applying the resolution from this dispute onto the article? (The ongoing article reassessment unrelated to this dispute may make it take longer, but it we agree to begin applying the dispute resolution, I will try to work with the reassessment person so that we can edit while or before/after/during a pause of the reassessment.) Thought 1915 (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with it. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 05:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. It really seems that this works.
Conclusion:
1. Remove current status from infobox
2. Add small section of how it is thought that the 15.ai website is abandoned. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 11:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I am unsure how it is communicated to the original moderator that a conclusion has been reached and that we are ready to apply the conclusion edits, but I will try to work things out with the reassessment, as editing an article during an article reassessment may cause problems. I am glad that the problem has been solved. Thought 1915 (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon We are happy to inform that we have reached a conclusion on how to resolve the 15.ai dispute. Please help us finalize on how to finally conclude/finalize. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 12:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (15.ai)

There was constructive discussion between the editors, and they have informed me that they have reached an agreement. At this point, I am lifting the rule against editing the article. Please edit the article to reflect the agreement that has been reached. Once the article has been edited, this case will be closed as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I will now perform the change into the article. Thank you. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 17:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@Thought 1915 thing just happened- do we need a reference for the text I am about to add?
I will not edit this article until I get a reply for verifiability reasons. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 17:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe so, but if one is needed, we can use the links that you have sent earlier in this dispute or some of the replies used in 15's twitter page. Thought 1915 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I will now edit the article. No references added.
Removing: Current Status.
Adding text:
After 1.5 years of waiting, much of the community has felt that 15 had abandoned the project due to a lack of contact, 15's usage of the domain for other projects, and working on other activities. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 21:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay. All is well. Thought 1915 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Great to see we have
 Resolved this with an Accepted solution. thumbs up Great! work,  Thanks for all of your work, Everything is  Implemented in the article now. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 00:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The edit was just reverted for violating WP:NPOV. Aw man. What should we do?? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 11:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The edit clearly violates WP:NPOV, more specifically WP:YESPOV, specifically "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". Furthermore, there is no citation that supports the edit, so its inclusion is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. HackerKnownAs (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
According to the text that Thought 1915 said, "I do not believe so, but if one is needed, we can use the links that you have sent earlier in this dispute or some of the replies used in 15's twitter page. " If you need us to cite a source, that is OK. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 17:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The inclusion of "much of the community has felt" frames the section as an opinion, and not a fact. Besides the citations, is there any other problem with the section that you would like to address? Thought 1915 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (15.ai)

Sixth statement by moderator (15.ai)

User:HackerKnownAs - Do you wish to take part in moderated discussion, subject to the rules described above? I have two questions. First, I see that you restored the status in the infobox to read Under Maintenance. Please explain how this is consistent with Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Second, do you have a compromise to suggest? I also have a question for all editors. Should I develop an RFC on the status of the web site? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate extra RFC regarding this topic. Thought 1915 (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (15.ai)

I have created a draft RFC on the status of 15.ai for review at Talk:15.ai/Draft RFC on Status . I will move it to the article talk page and remove the tag from the {{rfc}} to activate it after we have agreement that this RFC addresses the issue. Are these the options for the Current Status field in the infobox?

Are there any other questions that need to be addressed in the RFC, such as any wording the body of the article? The description of the status in the body of the article should be consistent with the infobox.

Are there any other content issues that need to be addressed? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

When this issue was originally brought up, I wanted to bring the question of whether the article was to be in past or present tense. I plan on being less active regarding this dispute though, so I hope there are other editors here that can go forth with helping bring over a conclusion while I take a step back for some time. Thank you for your patience through all of this. Thought 1915 (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
As Thought said, I also feel the need to be partially omitted from this discussion as it has been going for quite a while now, Other editors can voice their opinion too. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 11:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (15.ai)

Eighth statement by moderator (15.ai)

Are there any questions or comments about the draft RFC? If not, I will activate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors (15.ai)

Ikwerre people

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed 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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The page has been consistently falsified, suggesting the Ikwerre people are Igbo/Ibo people, which is untrue. The Ikwerre is unique ethnic in River State, with its own language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikwerre_language). I have tried to correct the notion and engaged the other user: Evafancy38, without making this report, but it has led to edit warring.

You can read briefly about the Ikwerre here: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6ab726c.html

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

[18] [19]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The page temporarily locked.

Summary of dispute by Evafancy38

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

Ikwerre people discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_250&oldid=1255597138"