Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Nivkh alphabets	In Progress	Modun (t)	11 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days,	Modun (t)	5 hours
Lydham Hall	Closed	Olga Sydney (t)	5 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	48 minutes	Robert McClenon (t)	48 minutes
Wudu	New	Nasserb786 (t)	3 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours	Nasserb786 (t)	2 hours
Benevolent dictatorship	Closed	Banedon (t)	2 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours
Super Bowl_III	Closed	73.28.218.215 (t)	1 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	20 hours
Battle of_al-Qadisiyyah	Closed	M7md AAAA (t)	1 days, 12 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 1 hours
Queen of Sheba	Closed	Afrodiplomacy (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	56 minutes	Robert McClenon (t)	56 minutes
Dog fashion	New	RteeeeKed (t)	19 hours	None	n/a	RteeeeKed (t)	19 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Camille Vasquez

– New discussion.

Filed by Throast on 20:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Camille Vasquez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Throast (talk · contribs)
• Strattonsmith (talk · contribs)
• Bangabandhu (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement over whether to include the name of the (at this point) non-notable law firm she works at. Following persistent reinstatement of the disputed material despite BLPUNDEL concerns, a discussion was started on the talk page.

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

Talk:Camille Vasquez#Brown Rudnick User talk:Bangabandhu#"Brown Rudnick"

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

An unbiased take on the issue by "disinterested" editors would be appreciated.

Summary of dispute by Strattonsmith

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

Summary of dispute by Bangabandhu

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

Camille Vasquez 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 not yet notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. Forgot about that. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Vasquez)

I am willing to try to resolve this dispute in either of two ways. First, if the three editors agree, I will provide a Fourth Opinion. Second, if at least one editor requests an RFC, I will compose and start a Request for Comments. Please read the rules and comply with the rules.

So, will each editor please state in one or two paragraphs what they think are the issues, in particular, what they want changed, or left the same. Also, do you want me to offer a Fourth Opinion, and do you want an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes this should have gone to RFC. I've never seen this forum before and have no idea why it would end up here.12:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC) Bangabandhu (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Vasquez)

I will repeat what I've already laid out at the talk page: I think the name of the law firm Vasquez works for, particularly, should be left out. This is because, without the firm being notable, inclusion of the name would be trivial; including it serves no purpose at this point in time unless one has a vested interest in promoting the law firm. This revision excludes the name while still giving sufficient context. Simply arguing that the name is verifiable does not justify including it because "Wikipedia is not everything". Looking at the back-and-forth at the talk page, I have no confidence that me and the other two editors will be able to agree, so an RFC might be appropriate. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The law firm has now also been added to the infobox, which I would remove accordingly. Throast (talk | contribs) 10:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you actually read the requirements for notability? An entry is not necessary. There's abundant "coverage in independent sources" for example here, here, here, here, here, here, and more Bangabandhu (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Vasquez)

User:Bangabandhu - Did you read Rule 8? Do not reply to the other editors. Reply only to me.

Any editor may make a statement. However, I will be composing an RFC within 24 hours. I will also ask the editors in the RFC not to argue with each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't read Rule 8, but I understand now and will reply only to you. You should know that your RFC is different than the matter in question. At issue here is whether there should be any mention of Brown Rudnick in the entry. The way it was posed to other editors asks whether Brown Rudnick belongs in the lede. It's placement in the lede might be worthy of an RFC, but it's different than what we were discussing. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

New English Review

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ibn Khaldun 127 on 11:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC).

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 New English Review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk · contribs) TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) Thriley (talk · contribs) Egsan Bacon (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I believe the above article was originally written in a very biased manner, contravening Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I have tried to edit the article to provide more balance and have engaged in conversations with other contributors who disagreed with me. Two of these were Thriley and Egsan Bacon who eventually agreed, after discussion in the Talk page, that a sentence could be added about the NER's missin statement. This is not advertising, it is information on what the organisation claims it seeks to achieve and seems to be allowed for other Wikipedia entries (I cite about 10 of these in the Talk page). However, TrangaBellam keeps removing the changes I have agreed with other contributors, ignoring or not engaging in discussion with my reasons for the edits being justified and instead keeps repeating their own reasons, which I have attempted to address, and citing justifications which do not fall within Wikipedia's guidelines (i.e. citing an article WP:MANDY). You will see I have tried to engage in discussion at every step of the way but TrangaBellam is not discussing, rather ignoring my points and justifying their own with invalid sources. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:New English Review#Removal of The New English Review describes itself as "unaffiliated with any political party or religious denomination" and "dedicated to the return of the spirit of public debate." under NER: political orientation How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Given Wikipedia allows inclusion of how other organizations describe themselves (for example: New Statesman, The Sun Magazine, American Humanist Association, The Economist, The New York Times, Movement for Black Lives, The United Nations, EU) there should be consistency and NER be allowed to do the same. In addition, contributors must show they are being neutral rather than denying others through difference of opinion. The sources cited in the article have not been scrutinised for accuracy. Summary of dispute by Ibn Khaldun 127; TrangaBellam Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have no inclination to participate in this forum. The OP is free to launch a RfC. Thanks, New English Review discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. volunteer response I am happy to mediate this discussion, however- all participants must be notified on their talk page first- there is a template for how to do this at the top of this page. Second- a majority of involved editors must agree to participate. Finally- no edits to this section should be made until this discussion is resolved. Editors are already dangerously close to edit warring- so this requirement is important. Also- this forum is to discuss edits, not editors. If you have concerns about the behavior of other editors- the WP:ANI is the place, we help solve content disputes only. If you agree to these guidelines and are willing to participate- please indicate this in your section above. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2022 (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 Taylor (British Author)

– New discussion.

Filed by Freethinker6799 on 20:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jessica Taylor (British Author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Freethinker6799 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Greetings. The other day I've made an editions to three pages including Jessica Taylor British Author page. In ehich I added a section titled "criticism and controversies" because there wasn't appropriate section to add. Also added a few citation to, that was from international news agencies and the incident was happened in Twitter. One or two days later I realized that the whole section was removed by user: generalrelative on the basis that it has no reliable sources which wasn't true. Because sources were appropriate and for something like that reliable international news agencies are good. Ihad undid the removal when found out. After that I realized that user: generalrelative also tracked down my activities and removed two other editions! First I thought maybe it's a joke, undid those two either. The next day I found out that same user removed editions once again a few minutes after! Another Time I undid it thought it's kidding. Meanwhile I send an email to the user telling them it's inappropriate do that. No answer from email but the user put a warning on my page on "edit war" which is so offensive that the person who tracked down my activities and removed them warned me of edit war. I wrote a couple of messages on user's page telling that it's cited by sources, WP isn't for promotion or advertisments that any criticism would be prohibited.Those threatenings are continuing and I see no way to resolution except third party interference. Would be appreciated if take suitable measures. Yours sincerely.

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

The sources added are informative for a neutral person and I've left comments on user's page. No progress. Telling things strange on I used two accounts or whatever which I didn't as far as I were aware. Also it's not related to rlthe dispute.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Assess the added part to the page under dispute and assess sources to decide why it shouldn't be there. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so any individual person should be subject to impartial criticizing which is very common and person's fans could not prevent it.

Jessica Taylor (British Author) discussion

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