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
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	Resolved	Avi8tor (t)	26 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 days, 17 hours
Norse Deity pages	Closed	Dots321 (t)	18 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 19 hours
List of South Korean girl groups	Closed	98Tigerius (t)	18 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 days, 1 hours
Benevolent dictatorship	Closed	Banedon (t)	17 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	21 hours
Talk:Taylor Swift	Closed	Gsgdd (t)	17 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 days, 18 hours
Kylie Minogue	Closed	PHShanghai (t)	14 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	8 days,
African diaspora	Closed	Kyogul (t)	11 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 days, 17 hours
Primavera Capital Group	Closed	WorldPeace888 (t)	4 days, 12 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 10 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 10 hours
Serbia men's national basketball team	Closed	Wikiacc321 (t)	2 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 12 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, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

James Bradley (former slave)

– This request has been placed on hold.

Filed by Deisenbe on 11:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• James Bradley (former slave) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Deisenbe (talk · contribs)
• CaroleHenson (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue has to do with only one specific question: the value of recent (since 1950) newspaper articles on the man the article is about. My position is:

a) there is no source for information on this man's biography before he arrived in Cincinnati, other than his autobiographical statement and reports from contemporaries about what he said to them;

b) no recent article makes a reference to any new source of information; therefore,

c) these articles used by Carole Henson, while secondary, are not to be relied on when they make unsupported statements about this man's life, such as his having spent time in northern Kentucky (this from a source promoting travel in Kentucky), and

d) using the nineteenth-century primary sources, his own statement and direct reports by persons present about what he said, makes for a better, more accurate article.

I'll let CaroleHenson say for herself what her position is.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Bradley_(former_slave)#Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Bradley_(former_slave)#Newspapers_have_to_come_out

Note that on the article's talk page there is talk between myself and CaroleHenson about other issues; this request is for comment on the issue of sources only.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Make a recommendation about whether the primary sources used by me in the article before Carole Henson got involved with it in February (as seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Bradley_(former_slave)&oldid=939446245) should be preferred, as more accurate or reliable, than the magazine articles she has replaced them with.

Summary of dispute by CaroleHenson

The article was nominated for a GA and I summarized this Key points for a second opinion as part of the review (now failed):

I am trying to sort out your key points for a second opinion:

• You believe, especially for the period before he goes to Lane, that "the only source is his own statement".
• If a source provides any information that is not in Bradley's statement, you find that to be false information.
• Regardless of whether a source would be considered a reliable source (newspapers, books) in other instances, if you find that they published something you don't agree with, they are not a reliable source.
• You question even his own statement about being admitted to Lane, because you don't think it's likely that it happened... although I have mentioned above that there are tons of sources including Bradley that say he enrolled there. (I would agree, though, that he wouldn't have been ready to attend the literary or theological departments.)
• The means to me that you think that Bradley's statement is always the right and true source, unless something does not make sense to you. Then, it (and all the other sources that state the same thing) should be ignored.

What you have not said, but I interpret: You removed anything from the lede/intro that did not come directly from Bradley... well, and also information that came from Bradley about his life before Lane.

There was a clarification by Deisenbe about this list: I do not believe that the only source is his own statement. However, before he arrived at Lane, his statement and the comments of his contemporaries (presumably repeating what he told them) are the only sources I know of. Something like his spending time in northern Kentucky on the way to Cincinnati, I don't believe there is a reliable source for that. deisenbe (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC) (reply)

Please also see this discussion about removing all newspaper sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: is right in that I made a regrettable and embarrassing mistake regarding Bradley's admission to Lane. She was right and I was wrong on that point. deisenbe (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Per Deisenbe's comment, I struck out one of the items.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

James Bradley (former slave) discussion

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

• Comment I just realized that the version that Deisenbe provided under the "How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?" section was after I had started working on the article. The version of the article before I got involved is this version.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Note to participants: @Deisenbe and CaroleHenson: If you're seeking a third opinion, filing a request for one at WP:3O is your best bet. DRN is meant for situations where an independent mediator is needed to help guide a consensus-building conversation. If you're interested in that, feel free to shoot me a message on my talk page. --MrClog (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I opened a third opinion request here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - On hold waiting for a response from the Third Opinion. If the parties are satisfied with the third opinion, this request will be closed. Keeping this request open only in case the third opinion results in a desire for moderated discussion aftewards. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Deisenbe has said here that they do not want to be involved any longer regarding this article. I added back primary sources to the slave narrative (which was his main concern) and am leaving all secondary sources (yeah!). So, we should be able to close this now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Canvas fingerprinting

– New discussion.

Filed by Esponenziale on 10:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Canvas fingerprinting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MrX (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

At the time of discussion, two users voiced their skepticism about the proposed merger, but they never engaged nor conclusively opposed the merger. After months, one of them is back reverting the work that has been done in the meantime. Clearly I would be open to renew the discussion, but on the ground that it was previously closed with consensus.

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

Talk:Device_fingerprint#Overlap_with_Browser_fingerprint_and_Canvas_fingerprinting

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By determining whether the discussion should have been considered closed at the 5th of February with consensus (counting two people in favor, the proposer and me, and two people neither conclusively in opposition nor in favor).

Summary of dispute by MrX

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

Canvas fingerprinting discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - It appears that this is a controversy about Merging two articles, and that there was a merge discussion, but that the merge discussion was never formally closed. The parties should follow the instructions in Merging for resolving a merge discussion that involves controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The objects of the dispute are actually two and apparently independent: the procedure and the merge. On the procedural side, we dispute whether a consensus was reached or not when the discussion halted on the 5th of February. Do I have to file a posthumous request for closure?–Esponenziale (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    What I mean is: could you possibly help us solving just the dispute about the procedure?–Esponenziale (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Trauma trigger

– New discussion.

Filed by Pengortm on 16:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Trauma trigger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pengortm (talk · contribs)
• Bilorv (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement about how to best summarize the article with regard to costs and benefits of trigger warnings. One editor thinks several relevant scientists being critical of trigger warnings should be included in the lead. Another editor thinks criticism should only be included after more peer reviewed research is conducted. This was listed ~10 days ago and closed in the hopes of more discussion happening on the talk page. There has not been any discussion since 3/16.

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

[1]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Some clarity on wikipedia standards as applies to this particular situation. We seem to have reached an impasse and a skilled wikipedia editor would be helpful for some broader perspective.

Summary of dispute by Bilorv

This discussion should be closed; further discussion is a waste of time at present as we have as much consensus as we're going to get for the lead's current content. WhatamIdoing has provided routes for the article's body to be expanded in a sensible manner, which is the real solution here. If Pengortm wishes to improve the article then they should begin by adding this source to the body and finding similar sources to use (but not cherry-picking sources to support their own opinion).

Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing

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

I think this should be closed. Pengortm appears to be using this noticeboard in an effort to embarrass other editors into spending their time talking to him. This editor could have {{ping}}ed one of us if he really thought that it was urgent to have yet another reply on that talk page on his schedule. It's not even clear what Pengortm thinks should be done in that article (beyond him apparently wanting other people to keep spending their time talking to him). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Trauma trigger discussion

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