Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 767: Line 767:
==== Summary of dispute by The Satanator ====
==== Summary of dispute by The Satanator ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
I agree with PicturePerfect666, the article shouldn't be about Israel primarily. [[User:The Satanator|The Satanator]] ([[User talk:The Satanator|talk]]) 03:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by Yoyo360 ====
==== Summary of dispute by Yoyo360 ====

Revision as of 03:44, 22 May 2024

    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?

    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.

    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
    Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov In Progress Trumpetrep (t) 11 days, 15 hours Robert McClenon (t) 8 days, 6 hours Robert McClenon (t) 8 days, 6 hours
    Breyers New Zefr (t) 5 days, 14 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 9 hours Axad12 (t) 1 days, 1 hours
    Dragon Age: The Veilguard New Sariel Xilo (t) 3 days, 10 hours None n/a Wikibenboy94 (t) 2 days, 11 hours
    Johanna Olson-Kennedy Closed 96.36.47.50 (t) 2 days, 21 hours Kovcszaln6 (t) 1 days, 18 hours Kovcszaln6 (t) 1 days, 18 hours
    AIM-174B New MWFwiki (t) 2 days, 5 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 9 hours MWFwiki (t) 10 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 20:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Current disputes

    Rafida

    – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
    Closed discussion

    Ibn Battuta

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    Closed discussion

    Palm Springs Air Museum

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    Closed discussion

    Tesla Inc.

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    Closed discussion

    Gabriellemcnell

    – New discussion.

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    I, Gabriellemcnell, have been attempting to update Robert (doll)'s page with relevant and factual information that is not currently on the page. The information the page is currently missing has to do with Robert's historical origins, cultural context, cultural impact, and exposure in popular culture. The edits I published were backed by independent sources multiple times where necessary. I received permission and primary source documentation on the updated information regarding Robert through the Key West Art and Historical Society, who are the foremost experts and rights holders of Robert himself. Moments after successfully publishing the edits to Robert (doll)'s page, user @LuckyLouie had reverted it and notified me of this through the talk page on my account, @Gabriellemcnell. I reviewed his reasonings for the revert and attempted to reason with him through my talk page. The next edit I published was removing the sources that did not comply with the FRIND guidelines. By removing the fringe sources, which were LuckyLouie's main concern, I thought the page would stay updated as it complies with the necessary citations for the factual information within. User LuckyLouie took down the page again, within 24 hours, and began attacking my editing character on my talk page. I refrained from further edits to stop any edit warring from happening. I continued my attempts at reasoning with LuckyLouie but they were not able to specify what the exact problem with my initial edits were. User DonaldAlbury then joined the conversation on my talk page and attacked my editing character as well. I have tried to reason with DonaldAlbury and request specific problems to no avail. I do not know what else to do as Robert's page is still out of date and inaccurate.

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

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

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    I'd like to publish the original edits I made to Robert's page that have since been reverted. If I try to publish the page again with these edits, these users will revert it. Robert's page, once updated, needs to be protected or the users involved need to specify what their issue is or the users involved need to be restricted in reverting edits to Robert's page

    Summary of dispute by LuckyLouie

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

    Summary of dispute by DonaldAlbury

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

    Gabriellemcnell discussion

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

    Undetectable.ai

    – New discussion.
    User @Sesame119 appears to be a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account.
    As can be seen here, this user created a talk page post after filing this dispute.
    One month ago, this user, who has no other edits then this single one he is warring over, Was warned a month ago for edit warring and improper editing.
    Since this warning, the user hasn't made a single constructive edit outside of the same controversial and unreliably sourced edit they made when they first created their account.[1]
    While the first few times could be overlooked in good faith, it seems clear to me that this user exists only to add this specific edit to this page, and despite being warned last month NOT to include blacklisted/unreliable sources, they did so again.
    If an admin comes across this noticeboard, I'm requesting that this user be temporarily blocked for disruptive editing, so that they can take some time to read about WP policy, specifically, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research. Comintell (talk) 23:55, 21 May 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

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    I have attempted to add a "controversies" section to this page on several occasions over the last several months. The user "Comintell" has instantly changed my content back multiple times. They seem to have a vested interest in this company not receiving any attention that could be perceived as negative which constitutes a bias not in line with Wikipedia's values. Their claim is that my sources are inadequate despite being from government websites and articles mentioned on other Wikipedia pages respectively. I don't want to engage in an "edit war" with this user and they have failed to respond to any of my communications explaining my reasoning sent in response to their removals of my content. Please let me know if this user could be kept from editing this page further or simply kept from removing my content which is well sourced and legitimate.

    Thank you.

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sesame119#c-Comintell-20240520235300-May_2024

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Ask this user to engage in a dialogue with me since they seem intent on removing certain verifiable information. I would like to understand their genuine reasoning. Or alternatively remove editing power of this user from the Undetectable.ai Wikipedia page.

    Summary of dispute by Comintell

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

    Undetectable.ai discussion

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

    Ibn Battuta

    – New discussion.

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    1.Clarity for Modern Readers: The current description uses “Tangier, Marinid Sultanate” and “Maghrebi traveler.” While this is historically significant, it may not be clear to most modern readers. Using “Tangier, Morocco” and “Moroccan traveler” could provide more immediate understanding. 2.Historical Context: While it’s important to use terms that modern readers will understand, it’s also crucial to provide historical context. We can mention that during Ibn Battuta’s time, Morocco was known as “al-Maghrib al-Aqsa” within the broader Maghreb region. This provides both clarity and historical accuracy. 3.Standard Practices: Wikipedia typically describes the birthplace and death of historical figures in relation to current countries, not the ruling entity of the time. This is especially relevant when the entity, in this case, the “Marinid Sultanate”, no longer exists. While Tangier and Marrakech are well known cities in Morocco. Aligning the article with this practice would maintain consistency across Wikipedia.


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

    [[4]]

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    it would be best to involve an administrator to help mediate this dispute and ensure that the most accurate information is presented on the page.

    Ibn Battuta discussion

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

    Eurovision Song Contest 2024

    – New discussion.

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    There is an ongoing heated dispute over the level of detail given in the main article related to the coverage of Israel at this year's contest. There is a lot of want to include a lot of detail about the participation of Israel from including it prominently in the lede, to having multiple detailed sections in the main article. There is a need to ensure that policies on neutrality, balance, recentism, excessive detail, etc. are followed. There is a want to include based on the amount of media coverage and a want to include things unrelated to the contest in and of itself. The article is in danger of becoming not an article on the contest as a whole but an article on Israel's participation with some other things on the side. There is already an article specifically for Israel at the Evisovion Song Contest 2024. There is a need to avoid having a duplicate. There seems to be a push to include a lot more information on Israel than is warranted simply because some media outlets spilt a lot of ink writing about it, some people shouted very loudly through various means, and the Middle East conflict seems to drown out everything else it touches. The article needs to resolve how to include Israel while still maintaining focus on the actual Eurovision Song contest 2024, all the while remembering there is a child article specifically on Israel at this year's contest. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    There is a need for outside parties who are uninvolved to look at the totality of the discussions taking place related to Israel. There are a lot of Points of view, and a lot of details wanting to be included. There is also a lot of recentism being banded about. This is causing serious bogging down and disputes over what to include and not include. Help is needed sorting this through, with a strong focus on what is an is not encyclopaedic and what is and is not following the Wikipedia pillars. Guidance and reminders of what Wikipedia is not are needed. Help to sort what goes in the main article and what goes in the child article.

    Summary of dispute by The Satanator

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

    I agree with PicturePerfect666, the article shouldn't be about Israel primarily. The Satanator (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by Yoyo360

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

    Summary of dispute by ImStevan

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

    Summary of dispute by Super Goku V

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

    Summary of dispute by Bugghost

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

    Summary of dispute by Piccco

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

    Summary of dispute by F1xesc

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

    Summary of dispute by Jjj1238

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

    Summary of dispute by Ceriumlanthanum

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

    Summary of dispute by Kingsif

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

    Summary of dispute by Hhl95

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

    Summary of dispute by Vkb123

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

    Summary of dispute by Edwin of Northumbria

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

    Summary of dispute by Spa-Franks

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

    Summary of dispute by JohnR1Roberts

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

    Summary of dispute by Nickpunk

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

    Summary of dispute by MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really...

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

    Summary of dispute by IJA

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
    • Comment I'm unsure why I've been included in this so-called dispute. I've not said anything whatsoever in regards to Israel. I simply said that I don't think that there should be a separate article re controversies (for those unfamiliar with the subject, there are controversies that had nothing to do with Israel), as it could lead to POV FORKING, and I stand by that belief. Having revisitedtge talk page, I really don't think there is any dispute to be noted. IJA (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by Tonyb1989

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

    Summary of dispute by HypeBoy

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

    Summary of dispute by Uamaol

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
    • Comment I've been incorrectly added to this like User:IJA. It appears that constituents of discussions of suggested article moves/creations relating to Eurovision 2024 controversies have been thrown into something that has to do with Israel. I am involved in the former but not the latter. My contribution to the article surrounds flags, particularly the banning on non-binary and CoE/EU flags. On the talk page I support the move of the controversy section to a new article. Nothing to do with Israel. UaMaol (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by Kapitan110295

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

    Eurovision Song Contest 2024 discussion

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