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
Neith	Resolved	Potymkin (t)	28 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours
Defense of Sihang Warehouse	In Progress	Adachi1939 (t)	9 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 23 hours	Adachi1939 (t)	3 days, 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 05:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Leveson Inquiry

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Meerta on 22:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Leveson Inquiry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Meerta (talk · contribs)
• Jimthing (talk · contribs)
• Paul MacDermott (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Leveson enquiry is a two-part inquiry investigating the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal. It took evidence over nine months, and last month a 2000 page report was published for part one. It is the largest event for the press in the UK since the war, and has ramifications well beyond the press. The report collated the evidence, commented, drew inferences and made recommendations. E.g. Sections of the press had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people".

The report contained a mistake concerning one of the founders of the Independent newspaper (i.e. Brett Straub - who did not found it), which may have come about by an assistant on the report relying on a Wikipedia that had been edited in bad faith. This was talked about in a humorous manner on a satirical news quiz programme. This now has a whole section to itself on a rather Leveson Inquiry spartan page. This seems out of proportion and similar types of addition had already been argued against in other Talk page sections.

Arguments are being ignored and consent and conclusions assumed and I have requested that certain comments about me be taken back. The tone is surprising in parts. There was a period of edit reverting, maybe warring, which may seems to be continuing.

The discussion in question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leveson_Inquiry#Brett_Straub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerta (talk • contribs) 21:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

[Note 15/12/12: I have informed the editors by posting on the talk page, and am sure everyone currently involved has seen it but will happily post on their talk pages if that is considered necessary. Six have contributed on the talk page so far and I had only mentioned the most recent - it's absolutely right that AJHingston contribute.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerta (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

All the appropriate arguments have been made in the section often by more than one person.

How do you think we can help?

It might be helpful if one or more experienced Wiki editors with background knowledge of Leveson can read carefully through this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leveson_Inquiry#Brett_Straub (including sub-heading "Mentioned on Have I Got News for You", and now part of "Further info needed") and assess everything that has been said. There have already been four or five contributors to the discussion.

Opening comments by Paul MacDermott

I feel this should really be taken to WP:3O before coming here, but since the discussion is open now I'll add my thoughts. I originally raised the issue of whether to include a brief reference to the incorrect naming of Straub as a founder of The Independent in the Leveson report after seeing an item about it on the aforementioned quiz. I thought it possible someone might decide to add it so a discussion was needed, but had no strong feelings about its inclusion myself. Having seen the information added and removed by other users I became more involved in the talk page discussion, but have made minimal editing to the Straub section itself. I removed some unreferenced text and suggested sources should be added. 2 were subsequently provided, 1 of them from YouTube, which I removed per WP:YOUTUBE amid possible copyvio concerns. To me there seems to be a WP:UNDUE element to the section as it stands, although I'm not against the idea of a brief mention of Straub in an expanded version of the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 22:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by AJHingston

As I have been involved in the debate I should comment here. The issue seems to me to be how WP:UNDUE should be interpreted in the context of WP:NPOV as a whole when the topic has been the subject of widespread media debate, a report totalling almost 2000 pages and nearly 600 witness statements. The article has been recently (and I think reasonably) pruned, for example to remove the list of oral witnesses, many of whom are notable enough for a BLP. In some cases their evidence was a top news item. The inquiry and the issues raised have been the subject of very extensive media coverage. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have all spoken about the recommendations and their differences are the subject of cross party talks. In this context, the inclusion in the report of an error from Wikipedia is of course something of great interest to Wikipedians but it is not seriously suggested to have any material significance nor do there appear to be other similar errors in the report. True it has been picked up on a popular satire show, but such shows have also referred to other aspects of the inquiry. They are tribute to the interest and importance of the subject but not included in the article. If the Brett Straub affair is to stand as now and be given due weight then the rest of the article will need to be enormously expanded to include the evidence of witnesses, the media coverage, the detailed recommendations of the inquiry, the discussions about implementation and the alternative proposals of the industry. Some of that may be desirable, but in total it will not lead to a good article. A good balanced article needs to be selective. --AJHingston (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Jimthing

Re. the Youtube video: it has fair use rights attributed to it, so whilst we do have WP:YOUTUBE we also have WP:ELNEVER (precisely "...or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use"), and anyway there is also another BBC cite given also, added when link was live. Re. the Straub section inclusion: I partially agree with AJHingston on his points that the article needs to be expanded upon to include much more missing detail, which it is sorely in need of, this would then negate the WP:UNDUE argument being raised here against this interesting detail. I did in fact raise the issue of missing detail in the page talk ("Further info needed?") which Meerta agreed with, but instead of adding anything to expand the page to therefore negate the UNDUE reasoning, instead they wasted more time opening this DR instead, running contradictory to the UNDUE issue they are suggesting by not expanding the article to negate it's prominence. To be honest I can't really believe this has been taken to a DR for it's inclusion, as whilst the inquiry/report is of a serious nature, this doesn't negate being able to have less serious points like this Straub incident too, as it forms a wider point of interest to the reader. Examples of this can be seen across site, including—but not exclusively—a great deal of articles with Trivia sections on them, listing such info for this very reason, so they are not mutually exclusive types of info.
[sidenote for reviewer: Meerta's comments on the Talk page discussion are missing time/date stamps next to the users sig (or no sig at all), so reliability of original comments made may have to be checked in the Talk page history.] Jimthing (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Leveson Inquiry

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I closed this because it appeared that the filing editor may have left Wikipedia and because no volunteer had yet addressed the case. I see that it has now been reopened by the filing editor, which is fine, but when a case has been open as long as this one and no one has addressed it it is frequently the case that there is no volunteer who cares to do so (and some may feel that for one reason or another that they should not take it because they are non-neutral). We will let it sit for another day or three to see if someone may choose to take it, but if they do not then I'll probably close it again as stale. I do not know if the bot will relist it in the case summary or not. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been re-listed. Thanks for clarifying. Please let me know where to take it next if no one does take it up. Edit: For the record, I haven't done anything that should lead anyone to think I've left Wikipedia. I see this comment on the site sometimes, but now it's been applied to me I must say I don't understand it.Meerta (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2012.(UTC)

To clarify to volunteers, this discussion still hasn't been opened. Meerta (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I am willing to take the case. I will do a quick read of the situation tomorrow and come back here. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the dispute still going on? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by 173.67.110.108 on 08:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Muboshgu (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Wikipedia editor Muboshgu (talk · contribs) has been removing edits for their own opinion.

As a fan of the sports team, I edited the page to look more organized and include more relevant material seen here [1]

and the editor undid all 3 edits for the reasons of "fancruft," sources, and "non-notable rivalries," even though I provided sources and the information was clear and consistent with the rest of the page.

I noticed the editor was a fan of a rival team and may hold some bias. Wiki should be used by everyone, but in this case it is quite unfair to people who actually care about the page rather than someone who can intentionally remove beneficial edits and not get into trouble because of their editor status.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I made edits of organizing rivals section into 3 parts and added more relevant material to support the statements. All edits were taken down because of a "lack of sources," I then added each source for everything said. All my edits were taken off again for new reasons of "Fancruft" and non-notable rivalries, yet the same rivalries stay on the page and the edits I made were all providing evidence for statements made about a rival, not fancruft.

How do you think we can help?

Ideally, the user should be notified that 3rd parties have reviewed the content removed, seen in the contrast edit here-> [2] If the 3rd parties believe that the user did remove the edits in a harmful manner instead of "following normal protocol" [3] then tell the user of his or her errors and suggest not editing rival pages

Opening comments by Muboshgu

I reverted additions of unsourced fancruft onto a page that is already a magnet for unsourced fancruft. The page should probably be locked to prevent IP editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To [User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]], I provided sources for each statement. Each statement in rivals section was necessary and not fancruft, for not providing evidence of a rivalry is to not provide sources for a statement. 2012 section was not necessary but much more happened than the acquisitions and the Angels win/loss record; its one of the most exciting years in recent history, yet how does 2008 have more info? Please fix this if your going to start editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.110.108 (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi there, I volunteer here at DRN. That doesn't mean my opinions carry any more weight that anyone elses but I'll do my best to try broker a resolution to this dispute Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

From reading the diffs I would have to agree that a lot of the content added and then removed is indeed WP:FANCRUFT. Furthermore, much of the content is poorly written, e.g. The two big acquisitions were said to be made by... While I commend the editor who added these as wanting to expand the information available about their team I would suggest that this level of information would be more appropriate on a dedicated wikia Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To Cabe and every other viewer of the dispute, the material was necessary and not fancruft for the reason that 2012 was a recent year in team history and a big year, and the rivalries are big for this team; to not have an explanation of them is like having a section for the team's history and not explaining how the team came to be. As it stands the rival section states there is a rivalry, then gives one sentence to possible reasons, instead of examples of where the rivalry stems, as was removed.

Another note is that the User removing necessary material from her rival team page did not follow wiki rules of "Normal Protocol," as it states, "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it." :The user recently removed sections of the "Fan Appreciation" section that are found on any sports team Wikipedia page, such as 7th inning song and fan traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.110.108 (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular editor here at DRN, like Cabe6403. Please note that the "Normal Protocol" that you are relying on is a suggested means of avoiding conflict, not an editing rule, and no editor is required to follow it. Though not the only way to resolve this kind of dispute, perhaps the first thing to do is to look at sourcing. I've not looked at the material, but rather than fight over whether or not the material is or is not fancruft, a lot of material which may be fancruft can be eliminated because it is unsourced or inadequately sourced. Wikipedia policy allows unsourced material to be deleted and says that it is a violation of policy to add it back in without providing sources. Sources must be "reliable sources" as defined by Wikipedia and sources which are not Wikipedia-defined reliable sources may also be removed. Once unreliable sources are removed, then the material may also be removed if the removal of the unreliable sources leaves the material unsourced. Policy says that the better and "best practices" way of doing all that is to, best, find reliable sources for the material if you can, rather than just removing it, or next best, {{fact}} or {{cn}} tag the material and leave it there for a few days to allow it to be reliably sourced, then remove it if sources are not provided. But is it acceptable under Wikipedia policy to just remove it and there is no room to complain if someone does that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(Passerby volunteer comment) - I've cleaned up the opening comment and deleted a bugged section. Revert anything that I deleted by accident that should be there. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 05:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the dispute still going on or should I close the thread? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:William Hill_Sports_Book_of_the_Year#Blue.26yellow_caption_for_table

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Green Cardamom on 21:17, 24 December 2012 (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 Talk:William Hill Sports Book of the Year#Blue.26yellow caption for table (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Green Cardamom (talk · contribs) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Use of color in table caption. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on talk page. How do you think we can help? I would like to include a color caption to stylistically match the colors of the award logo at the top of the page. See here at the top of the table a blue strip. The Rambling Man doesn't want to use a color strip (which matches the color of the award logo), and also seems to object to even having a logo at all (which is standard for most award articles). Opening comments by The Rambling Man Still being discussed, not sure why this has been opened, happy Christmas all. Snowdogs are on me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Are you supposed to write comments in my section? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. Please say your position in the dispute, not the text you have wrote that could be said as "The dispute is still on the talk page". Your comment just isn't helpful. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Green Cardamom @The Ramblin Man: Well, I did qualify that statement which you chopped off, you're sort of harping on it and taking it out of context unnecessarily. You seem to think the color banner is a "corporate branding" and that would make sense if I was a shill for the company but clearly I am not thus giving my background and interest in Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC) (derail nonsense) @The Ramblin Man: you say above that discussion is "ongoing", but on the talk page you said you don't want to participate in the discussion, then later you said you will let others determine the results. Can you clarify where you stand? If I restore the color, are you going to revert it again? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man has now said "enjoy the dispute noticeboard, I won't be back there again"[4]. This is why I have resorted to this dispute noticeboard, TRM and I end up in revert battles or discussions that are borderline uncivil and unproductive. He calls my desire for the use of color "pathetic" and says he finds this conflict resolution "funny" and express no desire to partake in the process. What should I do, how can I resolve this dispute? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Talk:William Hill_Sports_Book_of_the_Year#Blue.26yellow_caption_for_table discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Everyone please state their stance on the dispute here. Not replying to the others for now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Van Rensselaer_(surname) – New discussion. Filed by JGVR on 15:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Van Rensselaer (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved JGVR (talk · contribs) Voceditenore (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An editor is insisting on putting too much information for a surname list on one hand and putting misleading un-cited information in other areas ... its demonstrated in edits and talk. We are dealing with a name that has been in North America since 1550s When the Van Rensselaers colonized all but just a few generations. Those generations did not procreate long. It is rare indeed but the entire family name is of American descent.... 100% no exceptions. The other editor is adding garbage about other family names and Finish and Belgian nonsense, it is getting hard to keep up with error correction. I am merely trying to keep an unbiased list with some background on the name and for some reason the other editor is insistent on bringing un-needed attention to the persons signature on the family crest placing a link that is likely already in his bio. For the moment I will let it go for the moment, but I will fix it later. Neither of us as far as I know had anything to do with this unbiased article that the other editor does seems to have little regard. Van_(Dutch) Have you tried to resolve this previously? showing facts and citing edits How do you think we can help? I think by simply - not being me would be a great help (it ain't easy) Opening comments by Voceditenore Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Van Rensselaer_(surname) discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.