This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 15.ai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ltbdl (talk · contribs)
• Thought 1915 (talk · contribs)
• RocketKnightX (talk · contribs)
• SuperStain (talk · contribs)
• VexVector (talk · contribs)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

i can follow the ground rules. i have nothing to add to thought 1915's summary. ltbdl☃ (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, it's very hard to find an actual reference that would document that the site is abandoned. We might need to do a instead. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 11:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with this. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Anyone else up for 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)[reply]

with what? ltbdl☃ (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's hard to find a reference, it might just be easier to put a in place of it. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 11:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

placing a next to "is" is a little silly. ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

they’ll definitely oppose this decision, but i agree to this. ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

singular they ltbdl☃ (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

i'll notify them again, let's see if they answer. ltbdl☃ (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Im the person who proposed the 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.

(this is an example only)

in the event that it may not be suitable to just blatantly place a , 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 is not appropriate. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) Celebrating 1000 Edits! 02:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Before we close this, we also could use the tag instead of (just saying before we finalize) Cooldudeseven7 00:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alright! It seems that 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 11:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.". We don't have to put it in the way I just put it- just an example. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 11:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have no problem with the tweet idea either, however it might be hard to find a notable one. Cooldudeseven7 14:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 tag added at the end, since most of the sources that prove this are either original research or not reliable yet. The 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)[reply]

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.

This text shows how 15.ai may still be alive but it is just thought that it is abandoned.

Cooldudeseven7 11:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This text shows how 15.ai may still be alive but it is just thought that it is abandoned. Cooldudeseven7 11:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alright! When do you think we should finalize the change if no one objects Cooldudeseven7 12:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I feel this would be the best way forward. SuperStain (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 00:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree I personally feel the same way about this user Cooldudeseven7 11:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 11:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 14:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed Ah, seemed that it was probably my network. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 22:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would prefer a small section. Thought 1915 (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm fine with it. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 05:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay. All is well. Thought 1915 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see we have

 Resolved this with an Accepted solution.  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Nagging Prawn (talk · contribs)
• Wolverine_XI (talk · contribs)
• Moxy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I attempted to add a sentence on the Wolf Wikipedia page citing a report from a peer-reviewed scientific journal of one wolf eating 181 Payette's Short-Winged Grasshoppers. Unfortunately, I encountered unexpected resistance, despite there having been no such disputes regarding this report in the citing literature. I was told to bring it up to the talk page, which I did. I was told to justify my edit, which I tried to do, citing precedent for similar dietary detail in other Wikipedia articles. An anonymous user concurred that it seemed worthy of inclusion, but I did not receive a rebuttal. After waiting for several weeks, I believed the support from a third party and lack of response otherwise might justify reverting the reversion. However, my edit was reverted again. Upon requesting reasons why this occurred on the talk page, I was told there was no context for the fact I was trying to add to the article. However, the citation provides this context, and upon mentioning this I received no response. After some days, I tried again to add this fact to the article, but after a few more days it was reverted again, with no new arguments given. As far as I can tell, this edit does not violate Wikipedia guidelines, so I am at a loss.

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

I was told to open a topic about this on the Wolf talk page, so I acquiesced. https://en.wikipedia.org/key/Talk:Wolf#Including_a_note_about_a_paper_reporting_a_lone_wolf_that_ate_181_grasshoppers When objections were raised, I made good faith attempts to address them in this topic.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Hopefully, I would like to be able to add this observation to the article, as it is such a surprising report. It neatly demonstrates the dietary breadth mentioned in the sentence that would have preceded this edit. Failing that, I would like robust reasons why this should be excluded. I hope moderation can encourage either the addition of this fact or meaningful dialogue about why it shouldn't be added.

One wolf eating 181 grasshoppers is hardly surprising. Why this user keeps on pushing this useless fact is beyond me. I'd like to hear what others have to say. Wolverine XI 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd random trivia about ONE wolf WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Moxy🍁 11:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to act as a meditator in this dispute. I have no connection to the article or any of the users involved.

DRN is a voluntary process, and further meditation is on hold pending a summary to be provided by User:Wolverine XI. Should he not respond by next Monday, the dispute will be moderated between only you two.

In the meantime, please confirm in the respective sections below that you agree on having a moderated dispute and will follow WP:DRNA. NotAGenious (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a moderated dispute and accept the ground rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagging Prawn (talk • contribs) 03:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.Moxy🍁 12:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will, at least temporarily, act as the moderator. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Do not explain why you want that, at this time. I am only asking "What?", because "Why?" can come later. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add an example of wolves' dietary breadth; namely a wolf consuming 181 grasshoppers. The two other editors involved here do not want this added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagging Prawn (talk • contribs) 20:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that one editor wants to include a mention of a wolf who was found to have eaten 181 grasshoppers, and other editors think that its inclusion is unnecessary. I am asking the editor who wants to insert the paragraph to provide the exact text that they want to insert. I am also asking each editor to make a concise statement, reflecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as to why they want to include or not include the paragraph.

Are there any other content issues or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Randomstaplers (talk · contribs)
• Bon courage (talk · contribs)
• Crossroads (talk · contribs)
• Conyo14 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is my first extensive talking through a semi-controversial dispute, so forgive me if I wasn't perfect.

So, for the past month, I've had a bit of a problem with the articles wording. I edited it, it was reverted, discussion ensued. Eventually, we settled on a consensus for about a month from Mid-September to October of 2024. It was on a dispute between findings from source C and this source J, which cites source P. This is reflected in Special:Permalink/1245461692 on September 13th.

In the meantime, I decided to post some information I'd found for readers to see. I was not warned about this behavior at the time, but I feel it necessary, because I don't censor my own thoughts and biases.

On October 17th, I noticed that there were text-source integrity issues with source C, first documented at Special:Permalink/1251618081.

As a result I felt the need to rephrase certain parts of the article to better reflect the newly found reliability problems.

As I said, I'm inexperienced, but I feel there might be a content problem here, especially after seeing the referencing problems in Special:Permalink/1251618081, and the use of sources by the review that have been rejected.

Anyways, I hope working through DRN will help us improve dispute resolution in the future, and highlight areas where I, and we, need improvement.

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

Talk:Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarifying policy, and also, what to do about this article, with regards to how it treats its references, linked here (archived)

(involved; apologies if I am not getting the formatting right) The fundamental problem here is that Randomstaplers is engaging in what another editor succinctly labeled perform[ing] amateur peer-review on WP:MEDRS sources - in this case, the Cochrane review article above called "Source C". [5] It is not the place of Wikpedia editors to negate the findings of such MEDRS sources based on personal analysis, only to reflect expert views as expressed in the highest quality published sources.

Yet, Randomstaplers is insisting on this edit. It contains the text A review from the Cochrane Collaboration, updated in 2023, claimed (contrary to the claims of some of its cited papers[165][166]) that masking had little effect on the spread of viral illness.[6] 6 is the Cochrane review itself; 165 and 166 are individual studies Cochrane cites, which Randomstaplers is here clearly using to argue against the review's conclusions. This is original research and completely contrary to the instructions of MEDRS.

That previous edit also has at least some other problems. It states about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that Various reviews on RCTs find that masking reduces the rate of respiratory infection, but cites for this at least some sources that do not review RCTs at all, such as this and this. I can't ignore the irony that this is a clear lack of text-source integrity in their own content, the very thing they are accusing Cochrane of. Crossroads 22:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed edit(s) seem to be a long and elaborate way of not simply saying with the best sources say (specifically, a Cochrane Review). I think we should just summarize the best sources faithfully. Bon courage (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The filing editor has not listed and notified the other editors. One of the other editors has replied, and so does not need to be notified, but should be listed. Other editors who were involved in the discussion on the article talk page must be listed and notified. The filing editor and the editor who has replied should read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on COVID controversies, and should acknowledge that they have read those rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. I did notify @Bon Courage with substituted {{drn-notice}}, but they appear to have deleted the template. If we come to a resolution, we might need to notify a proxy editor, because I... kinda don't want to be the one to write it.

When I said that the other editors should be listed by the filing editor, I meant that the other editors should be listed by the filing editor. I meant that they should be listed, regardless of whether they had responded without being notified, and regardless of whether they had declined to participate in moderated discussion. The filing editor should still list all of the other editors.

I said that the editors should acknowledge that they have read the ArbCom decision that COVID is a contentious topic. I did not ask for an 800-word history, which I do not need.

Since two editors have posted, we can continue, although the listing of other editors is still required, and is the responsibility of the filing editor. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I will ask each editor to make a concise statement about what part of the article they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It is not important to explain why you want to change the article or leave it the same. We can discuss that later. Just tell what in the article is the subject of the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Listed.⸺(Random)staplers 04:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ignore the previous issues that got consensus last month. The issue right now is that this contribution, which I implemented following noticing issues with Source C. It was reverted by Crossroads, and then we agreed to implement in stages. The first paragraph got added. The second paragraph then got reverted by Bon Voyage courage. Further discussion did not go anywhere with regards to improving the paragraph. ⸺(Random)staplers 04:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Corrected a typo. Dang it... they pop up more often for me than the average editor, AFAICT.⸺(Random)staplers 16:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late addition: It just occurred to me: I'd like to also discuss the addition of {{unbalanced}} to the relevant section. I posited the analogy of life jackets earlier (with regards to regulation), since for some reason, no paper has decided to cite the relevant regulation they are following for their RCT (this drove me nuts, given how much I have written on respirators).

Although we can't conduct original research, I feel we do have an obligation to let viewers know what research needs to be conducted to improve the article, because RCTs... also show that a lot of scientists read Wikipedia first. See [6] (linked paper) and particularly this paper (which is cited by the former).

I apologize for not making it clear earlier that I had read these papers earlier with regards to my copyright work, which inevitably influenced my judgement on my talk page.⸺(Random)staplers 20:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I tried to gather all I could from the talk page and it seems that you're disputing peer-reviewed articles with what content should be addressed in the article. Granted, WP:PERENNIAL allows you to view and discuss whether a website or journal is reliable. But if two peer-reviewed journals are disagreeing with each other, then that's content in of itself. I would go with whatever is more prevalent/frequent in discussed literature/news articles. Many scientific journals can exist on RTCs and offer differing opinions, but what you're trying to edit in, feels out of place. I also feel it borders some more original research. It also doesn't exactly have a WP:NPOV. The very first statement, feels false, given that Cochrane was disputed by other journals and there was only one other non-disputed journal. The rest of the paragraph doesn't even line up correctly compared to what it would have been after the constructive edits completed. I don't think what's current is perfect though, but I also don't think your edits would have made it better. Try re-writing it again? Conyo14 (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Conyo14, well you see, that's the problem. I don't have any other perspectives to work with. And the initial bold edits weren't refined, (other than the first paragraph, which was accepted).

The big problem, IMO, is a logical one. From the life jacket analogy earlier: How are we supposed to explain regulatory context of each RCT? That's why I brought up 29 CFR 1910 earlier. You change the regulation, you change the results. You change the way life jackets are regulated, the police patrols, etc. You change how effective they are.

There are a couple papers that I read in the article that point out that RCTs can't be relied on alone, and trying to imply the elephant in the room, so to speak, without directly bringing up the elephant is a challenge. (I already know WP:NOR exists, but the talk page allows a bit more leeway, and it's been bothering me, as you can tell).

I tried removal way back in September, obviously that was rejected, since I missed/forgot a few guidelines.

Now, I'm trying to figure out an edit, keeping in mind all these editorial consensuses, how to explain to readers this discrepancy, with the sources we have at the moment. (And also keeping in mind there are scientists reading this, as I pointed out above).

And on top of all that: The Cochrane source has mislinks and links to a study whose protocols were failed by the authors, and the review does not disclose this! WP:Inaccuracy, and all that.⸺(Random)staplers 05:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, if any of you happen to have a ref, feel free to interject. Just because I'm making these claims doesn't mean it's original research, since I may have heard the statement from someone else and missed or forgot the source. See the first section in Wikipedia:These are not original research. Off topic: There were statements in the N95 article that were implied in the FR documents I read, before I was able to confirm them through publications and the Wayback machine for instance. But that took a while. ⸺(Random)staplers 05:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Definitely don't be worried about scientists quoting Wikipedia. They should not be reliable if they're quoting Wikipedia.

  Second off, hearing from a source but not providing it is kinda sorta OR. Conyo14 (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Conyo14 - Of course most scientists won't say they are quoting Wikipedia... But even if they aren't quoting them, it influences their judgement. It's been documented in the judicial system, see [7]. Speaking of kinda sorta... yeah. If you've been editing like I have, you can see how my POV can shift, which I emphasize my POV to try and account for this.⸺(Random)staplers 06:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Conyo14 So I thought about this a little more, and it's occurred to me why our OR perspectives seem to differ. I wrote the part on the Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster, which was caused by voluntary respirator regulations. So... nobody in the disaster wore respirators.

There is also the 2001 DOL study, plus papers like this one from 2024 and this one from 2011, and this one exploring the reasons why. [8], which I mentioned on the talk page, is one of the few RCTs that actually takes usage into account, but they don't cite 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(a) when it comes to why they excluded people with facial hair.

Like, these connections seem obvious to me as someone who has written about respirators a lot. But obviously, I can't (and haven't) mention (or mentioned) all of this directly in the article, because this is an article about the pandemic, and I can't draw conclusions about the paper from 2024, because it just presents data.

Sidenote: A lot more papers have been published about this pandemic than any other, so it is possible that someone with my POV has written something. On the other hand, a lot of the AIHA's perspective is very much locked behind paywalls.⸺(Random)staplers 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair assessment, though I think quoting yourself (I know you won't be doing that) would be a WP:COI. The point I'm trying to make is that a source that quotes other sources can do so as long as it is considered reliable. If you are questioning the reliability of a source, you ought to open a discussion at WP:PERENNIAL.

That being said, I very much see the connection of dots. If there is a source that shows this connection, I think that would be something that can be added in. Provided Bon courage and Crossroads agree on the language that will be added. Conyo14 (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources in the article, some put in place well before I got involved, that push back on the reliability of RCTs. The question is how to phrase it properly. If we were to give it too much detail, we would run the risk of making it seem like the RCT conversation is more important than it actually is, and obscure the lack of information. That's what I was trying to avoid with my last edit, by consolidating views as briefly as possible, per WP:Inaccuracy#Approaches to reporting potentially inaccurate material. That last edit was also trying to remove thread mode, which... might also make it more likely that the issue will be noticed (due to the WP:REALWORLD concern of having scientists being influenced by Wikipedia) rather than glossed over as a controversy, IMO.

This might be a lot to take in, so I'll put together a proposal in a few days. ⸺(Random)staplers 01:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This still looks like a lot of WP:OR on your part, especially about N95s. It's not as simple as you seem to be saying; N95s meeting safety regulation is largely irrelevant here. There are all sorts of reasons why N95s might nevertheless be less effective than they are designed to be when worn by the general public; they may have poor fit, adjust them a lot, not follow mandates, etc. Plus, the topic of the Cochrane review, of the article, and of almost all mask mandates ever implemented, are "masks", not N95s specifically. All that matters here is what MEDRS reviews say about the topic of the article. If the Cochrane review is criticized by another review, that can be included, but not OR. Crossroads 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crossroads As I have said before, there are citations already included in the article, even before I got involved, criticizing the Cochrane study. And there's still the issue of the mis-linking to work out, which has been noted in the web archive. We can work that out later, for now, I need to come up with a workable proposal.⸺(Random)staplers 03:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't notice that DRN Rule A says that there should not be any back-and-forth discussion between the editors. However, because there has been extended back-and-forth discussion, and it has been civil, we don't need that restriction, so I am changing to DRN Rule B, and I will allow the discussion to continue. We have one editor who wasn't listed. I am adding their name. Continue discussion. If you (the participating editors) conclude that discussion is not making any progress, I will try to refocus it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads @Conyo14 - Crossroads, your continuous comments on WP:OR annoyed me, so after more searching, yes, policy design RCT is indeed a missing POV - from Policy Design for COVID-19:

However, without conducting a randomized controlled trial, it is highly difficult to compare different government mandates’ efficacies (Haushofer and Metcalf 2020). Given the inherent challenges in launching randomized experiments (e.g., Abaluck et al. 2021), is it feasible to design an observational study with existing data on worldwide mandate adoptions to gauge their relative efficacies? [Continues on in a paper not about RCTs]

The following is more... anecdotal, but I feel it's worth mentioning:

• This paper mentioned before doesn't cite 1910.134,
• But Willeke, when he's testing surgical masks and DFM respirator filtration efficiency of all things, and only really needs to cite 30 CFR 11 (citation 23), nonetheless cites 1910.134 in citation 21 [9]. (This paper, if you recall, was cited by the NIOSH TB guide).

Isn't that weird? The POV slant of over-focusing on 1910.134 doesn't seem unheard of.

I would be careful, Crossroads, about mentioning "OR" over and over and over again without considering the situations in Wikipedia:These are not original research, or the fact people might not have the forethought of looking things up at the moment if they are busy arguing their point. I would also suggest asking for sources respectfully before making a claim about an editor.⸺(Random)staplers 09:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I had totally forgot that I had cited this link from CIDRAP news in the past: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/study-masks-vs-n95-respirators-health-workers-spurs-concerns

By the way, heads up: I should have my proposal up in a few hours. It'll take a couple weeks to implement, even though it doesn't change all that much TBH.——Randomstapler's alt 21:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I'm going to borrow an idea from copypatrol - creating a '/Temp' page, normally used to rewrite copyright violations. This time, the page will be used to rewrite the lead and the Efficacy sections, as these are in dispute. This will be done outside (main), since the last attempt to rewrite in (main) failed due to reverting. Everyone (including those not listed on DRN) will be allowed to edit the /Temp page, subject to the following:

Set up

Since I was the one to do the initial edit, I will set this up, subject to these steps:

1. Cleaning up the talk page - All current threads will be archived. We'll be starting fresh to avoid biasing new editors.

2. I will set up the temp page with my proposed changes, along with the section headings Lead, Efficacy, and Pinned section. The pinned section will be a place where editors can briefly state policy concerns, or links to articles or odd verification failures that might change a readers point of view, but would break the flow of the article. This will be linked to by {{Unbalanced}} in the Efficacy section, so the issue is made visible to readers with minimal editorializing. If there are any concerns about editor statements, discuss on the talk page.

3. {{in use|two weeks}} will be placed in the Efficacy section on (main), and a comment will be added to the lead warning editors that the lead will be overwritten, and to go to the relevant /Temp page instead.

4. I will link to this DRN thread, and will copy first and second statements from the DRN thread (not involving this proposal) and collapse them. (Doing it this way should prevent any more controversial statements being made while the page is being set up, while providing accessible but optional context.)

The proposal will be collapsed separately, and titled "/Temp editing rules." Once that's done, people can begin editing for two weeks (around November 17th or later). The deadline can also be extended if necessary if /Temp is still not stale.

Editing

Because the /Temp page is already obscured from the public, reverting other users is discouraged. Please let it be and talk it out--contents will not be merged if not settled. If any unwanted reverting occurs, dispassionately point it out and ask to self-revert. Edits should be continually improved under Wikipedia:Bold-refine.

Once set up is done, copy-pasting will be discouraged, due to potential copyvio problems, plus the fact that verifying sources is important.

Merging to (main)

Some time after the two week mark, around (November 17th or later), if /Temp is stable, I will decide if /Temp, as it stands from the last edit that is not mine is stable enough to merge into (main). If it is, I will do the merging with the required attribution. If I miss an attribution, a minor dummy edit can be inserted after the fact. Pinned section with editor statements will be added to the talk page, and pinned. All sections will be then be closed two weeks later, around December 1st or later.

In the event no one happens to edit the '/Temp' page, or if it is not clear to me that '/Temp' is stable, or if there are any other doubts, I will ask @Robert McClennan, or someone else, to do the merging.

If you understand point 4, and there are no questions or statements to the contrary, the process will begin sometime on or after November 3rd (UTC). Once the process in Set up has been implemented, we can close this DRN request.

@Crossroads @Conyo14 @Bon courage⸺(Random)staplers 00:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link it directly here? Conyo14 (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I'll use permalink so people can check. I'll copy the collapsed section, since I'm the only author.⸺(Random)staplers 01:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not prepared to accept this proposal (the final judge and jury status status Randomstaplers assigns themself is particularly egregious). A WP:LOCALCON cannot deprive other editors their say. Note this whole face mask/COVID/RCT question has been subject to previous in-depth discussion with many editors to arrive at where we are (e.g.[12]). If Randomstaplers wants to draft alt text, they should do so in their userspace. Bon courage (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @User:Bon courage The initial set up is done by me for practicality reasons - because I drafted the proposal. I've demonstrated I always stop to discuss first when someone reverts, so there should be nothing behaviorally that could go wrong, especially with this detailed procedure. You've also seen me cease all editing after starting this DR thread.
  • Nothing will change on mainspace save for one template and one comment. That's it.
  • Closing this edit, as I described in the proposal above, will be deferred to Robert McClenon in extenuating circumstances. If you want me to always defer to a third party before closing, we can do that.
  • As for discussion in [13], well, it's missed what we discussed just above, along with new sources. So that warrants some sort of procedure for controlled changing of the article. If editing mainspace directly is unacceptable, this is much more conservative.⸺(Random)staplers 06:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is meant to be DRN, but you are inventing some new process. I take it then the DRN effort has collapsed? Bon courage (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Bon courage - It's because I have a feeling that there are more people that want to change the article based on discussions above. Also, the DRN process is slow and naturally excludes non-parties while the process is going on. That's not conducive to building a neutral encyclopedia.⸺(Random)staplers 06:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, I do not recognize your preposterous new process and will ignore it while continuing to edit Wikipedia according to the well-established community norms described in the WP:PAGs. I thought this DRN might actually discuss some concrete proposals and achieve something. But if you're out you're out. Bon courage (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Bon courage - Ahem. @Robert McClenon, what's your take on this comment with regards to DRN rules?⸺(Random)staplers 06:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I fear this is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Your personal analysis of the 1910.134 regulation, of how Cochrane linked to other sources, of the Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster (???), etc is a confusing jumble of original research. None of this is based on following policies and guidelines like WP:MEDRS. Crossroads 16:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Crossroads - If you read the statement above, you'll see that 1910.134 is not included. The reason why I brought up 1910.134, and the Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster, is to provide additional context for my confusion.

      • My point is: you shouldn't keep pressing people's confusion or beliefs - you should be leading them (or asking questions) that go to the correct sources. If they have sources they might lead somewhere, I suggest you drop the issues in the process that led them there. Like I said, not everyone has their sources remembered.
      • You seem to be pushing all the effort on me to find sourcing. While there is an obligation for the person asked to provide sourcing, at some point, providing sourcing yourself, with justification, might be helpful to the other party to drop the issue, or understand what sourcing may be needed.
      • As for the policy you cited, this is all for @Conyo14, who joined this conversation. You seem to be ignoring that fact when citing NOTGETTINGIT.

      For the missing POV, please see [14] and [15], which you seem to have neglected in your response. ⸺(Random)staplers 17:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree with Crossroads. This is OR. The content you want to produce is not viable. Plus, you are asking to add content that for the most part, no one agrees on the wording. Finally, you cannot claim the edits shall proceed per WP:OWN, especially since there doesn't seem to be a resolution in sight. I personally say that the wording of what's there isn't great, but what you want to include does not make it better.

      Original research includes pointing out two sources that contradict each other, or don't cite other sources, or cite the wrong sources. You may have a different discussion on that. E.g "This source says this, while this source says this" is okay. "This source says this, but doesn't cite this source in the process" is OR, not okay. Conyo14 (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Conyo14 - Yes, but under OR by editors, so long as it isn't incorporated in the article, if it leads to more reliable sources, like this one (15 above), it might be worthwhile. Of course, it would be if it was pointed out in a more respectful manner, IMO.⸺(Random)staplers 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has stalled. We will go back to DRN Rule A. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Answer questions by the moderator. Address your answers to the moderator and to the community. Comment on content, not contributors. I will repeat the starting question. State concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave alone, or what you want to leave alone that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to implement contribution, with some changes (not shown in this diff):
What is done:

• First paragraph is already implemented.

Summary of what will need to be added, in addition to contribution:

• {{unbalanced}} in the efficacy section, due to this this paper on regulation, mentioned above. The linked talk page section will mention this.
• Instead of mentioning the source C's link problems in the article (currently described in parenthesis like this) and disrupting the flow, the linked talk page section will mention the linking problem.
  • In other words, I will copy the statement I created above (and collapsed) in the proposal.
• Implementation of CIDRAP news can be delayed for now.
• I'm more concerned about the flow of the lead and the Efficacy section, per Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, as well as the regulation paper, while relevant to the article, being unable to be implemented to no research being conducted.
  • This is because considerations have to be made with regards to [16] and [17] noting the influence on Wikipedia on science. The missing evidence noted in the regulation paper has to be noted. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify second bullet point in additions section.⸺(Random)staplers 19:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late addition: The "for example" phrasing might problematic, and why people might think it is OR, despite not being OR (thread mode consolidation was my focus at the time). That will be removed in a future revision.⸺(Random)staplers 16:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late(r) possible expansion: I had a look through Retraction Watch and found this paper with an expression of concern. News coverage on Australian ABC. In case there are concerns about non-RCT studies being perfectly done or something, this could serve as an interesting counterpoint in the "efficacy" section. This non-RCT was conducted in Australia.

Coupled with this paper on regulation above, this could be the impetus of a more extensive rewrite, which would negate the need for having to include {{unbalanced}}.⸺(Random)staplers 06:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A late connection... I cited [18] (the one on the talk page, wondering about the lack of 1910.134) and wondered where I got it from... turns out, it's linked in the CIDRAP news article.⸺(Random)staplers 07:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've said what I can. Unfortunately, the content at this point is borderline OR and should not proceed. It feels like an essay or a research paper based on the content, which is not what Wikipedia is. I do know the language can be altered a bit better. Regardless of where the language falls, I shall accept the outcome based on the moderator's judgment. Conyo14 (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:* @Conyo14 - For the record, be careful: you're not supposed to add sections yourself.⸺(Random)staplers 23:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Bogazicili (talk · contribs)
• Buidhe (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue concerns examples used in Genocide studies, History and Methods sections. (Primarily, removal of examples about Americas Bogazicili (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

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

• Talk:Genocide#European_colonialism
• Talk:Genocide#Removal_of_sourced_information
• Talk:Genocide#Incomplete_information_in_history_section
• Talk:Genocide#Additional_problems_with_recent_edits

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

1) Help with resolving potential WP:DUE and WP:NPOV issues 2) Help with representing the sources in the best possible way

To be honest, I have not found DR helpful before. And in this case, I'm not sure what the dispute is, so I will have a hard time summarizing it. Does BG still want to reinstate all of his edits? If so, I already explained on the talk page why I don't think they are beneficial to the encyclopedia, so I'm not sure it would be helpful to rehash. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to act as the moderator if two (or more) editors want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you agree to moderated discussion subject to those rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. (The purpose of any dispute resolution procedure is to improve the encyclopedia.) Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change. It is not necessary at this point to explain why you want to change the article or leave it unchanged; we will discuss that later. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to moderated discussion subject to those rules. These issues are mainly the difference in this diff. These are:
1) Giving examples to colonial (and settler colonial) genocides in Genocide#History, using United States and Australia as examples. I had also said more examples can be given in history section, overall.
2) Giving examples to genocide methods in Genocide#Methods, with some of the methods used in Americas (and these methods were not mentioned in that section).
3) Definition of settler colonies, and giving examples of settler colonies, in Genocide#Genocide_studies
4) Wording issues in second and third paragraphs in Genocide#History and other wording issues in above areas

To show WP:DUE for those examples, I provided quotes from the introduction chapters in WP:Secondary sources, such as The Cambridge World History of Genocide Volume 2 and in Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies. I also gave examples from genocide entries in WP:Tertiary sources, such as The Social Science Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion, and Encyclopedia of Global Justice. I tried to accommodate wording concerns (for example: [19][20]). But we've been unable to resolve the issues.

Overall, my main concern is examples mentioning Americas or indigenous people are being removed in the article. This concern is amplified by this journal article: Wikipedia’s Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia Bogazicili (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Double-slit experiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Johnjbarton (talk · contribs)
• XOR'easter (talk · contribs)
• Quondum (talk · contribs)
• Chetvorno (talk · contribs)
• Tercer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I think a diagram in the article should be deleted. Three other editors agree, one does not. I tried applying the suggested compromise by Chetvorno but it was reverted. I asked for input on the Physics wiki project. I don't know what to do next.

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

Talk:Double-slit_experiment#Photon_animation_is_not_correct.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Do you have any suggestions?

It seems Johnjbarton is no longer interested in DR. If that's not the case I can summarize the dispute here. Tercer (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry can you explain what I should do? Johnjbarton (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the large block of info on the top of this page, you are required to notify the involved users of this discussion on their talk page (you can use this template or a personal message). However, I've already done so for you, so don't worry about it. TheWikiToby (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks, I appreciate your efforts. However I did not want to bug these folks. I was just looking for advice. Johnjbarton (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the discussion, I think you have all made your positions clear and have not changed each other's minds. I think at this point, you simply make a formal proposal on the talk page of the article to remove the image and let the other editors have their vote. If there is a clear consensus to remove the image, then you remove it. If an entrenched editor, then continues to revert the will of the consensus, then you ask for help resolving the dispute. Constant314 (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I already make the formal proposal and three editors plus myself agreed to remove. But one does not. So what to do?

I agree that rehashing the arguments over here is not likely to make any difference. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start a new thread. Make simple proposal to remove the animation. Cast the first vote. Constant314 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon thanks for your attention. I don't think this mechanism will help us. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]