Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sticktoit (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 30 November 2020 (→‎Talk:Dario Hunter). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.
    Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)
    Shortcuts

    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
    Jessica Nabongo New Log6849129 (t) 5 days, 12 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 5 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 5 hours
    Neith New Potymkin (t) 5 days, 9 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 hours
    Ashfield Independents Closed NottsPolitics (t) 2 days, 11 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 4 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 4 hours
    Existential risk studies Closed JoaquimCebuano (t) 2 days, 10 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 3 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 3 hours
    Riley Gaines New Lisha2037 (t) 1 days, 18 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 9 hours DanielRigal (t) 1 days, 8 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 06:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Current disputes

    2020 Delhi Riots

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    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

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    There is a line about "a man, allegedly from the anti-CAA Side." I have provided verifiable and reliable references that clearly identify the man. Yet, for some reasons, the moderators are adamant about not naming him in the page. I do not understand the reason to refer to him as "a man" when is identity is on the public domain and he was caught on camera and has been identified beyond all doubts.

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Delhi_riots -:Ambigious sentence to absolve a criminal

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Verify the references i have provided and also check if the moderator-SlaterSteven, is adhering the NPOV policy of the page by refusing to add the name of the criminal, because according to him he is not a popular public figure.

    Summary of dispute by SlaterSteven

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

    One. We are not moderators. Two, the man has been charged, but there has been no conviction. Three, He is just one (as far as I can tell wholly) insignificant rioter.

    As such it may fail wp:undue it does fail wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note I was not informed of this, and the IP is an IP hopper, so it was only by checking that IP's edit history (they are a wp:spa, its why I was checking) I stumbled upon this DR request, I have also informed the other involved Editor.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by 331dot

    I too was not informed until SlaterSteven told me. The article at issue is particularly controversial among editors familiar with the event many of whom are trying to whitewash it towards one side or to a lesser degree the other. The only dispute here is by editors seeking to ignore WP:BLP when it suits them and follow it when it doesn't. Anyone who becomes familiar with the dispute will get a good education as to religious intolerance and bigotry in India. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    2020 Delhi Riots discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    •  Volunteer note: @Slatersteven and 331dot: I feel that a discussion cannot be opened with the IP hopping, and I doubt the IP will come back to check this discussion anyway. If all registered parties agree, I'll leave this as new, and open it if the IP comes back within 48 hours with an account. Seemplez 14:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds okay to me. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: I've left a message on their talk page. Seemplez 14:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly with IP hoping (and an admission of block evasion, for which one IP was blocked) I am not sure this should be kept open.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    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

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    Discussion as to:

    • Whether or not the "Criticism" section should be titled "Scholarly analysis"
    • What should be included in the "Criticism" section

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

    Talk:Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation#Criticism


    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    By providing consensus on the isssues named in my summary and bringing further attention to this matter.

    Summary of dispute by Davide King

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

    That The Black Book of Communism "was published by a university press, was a work of scholarship, and received praise, not just criticism" misses that the praise came mainly from publications and non-experts, whereas reviews among scholars, especially those in the field, were much more mixed or critical. It is not a mainstream work within the field; it is a revisionist work in pushing the view, especially in the introduction which is the main issue and source of controversy, and was not peer-reviewed, that Communism was equal, and worst by the numbers, to Nazism. This is Holocaust trivalisation amounting to the double genocide theory; it is not a mainstream work or a work representing scholarly consensus.

    Since the "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation made an effort to compile updated ranges of estimates and concluded that the overall range 'spans from 42,870,000 to 161,990,000' killed, with 100 million the most commonly cited figure", it is not surprising criticism of the estimates, including that of Rummel since the 161,990,000 seems to come from him, who gave the highest estimates, and The Black Book of Communism, which popularised "100 million [as] the most commonly cited figure", is very relevant and due, especially when they use those estimates to push the view of "Communist ideology as the cause of the killings", which "is unsupported in academic writing", so "perhaps [we should] explain that they chose an exaggerated number in order to prove their point that Communism was worse than Nazism."

    That the section currently includes only Ghodsee does not imply there is not an actual academic or scholarly analysis. There is "Bridges Across the Atlantic? Intertwined Anti-Communist Mobilisations in Europe and the United States after the Cold War" and The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War. The latter was actually listed alongside Ghodsee, so it was not only her. This work is about the narrative pushed by organisations such as this one, with the narrative called "Victims of Communism" stemming straight from this organisation, which has promoted this narrative. While Ghodsee' views about Communist states may be criticised, her views about the organisation have not been. We should avoid criticism sections. Finally, "I don't know if this is criticism, it's just an objective description of what the organization does. Calling it criticism is giving equal validity to a[n] organization that promotes fringe views." Davide King (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by Crossroads

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

    "Criticism" should not be renamed "scholarly analysis", as that is POV. So far the only thing there is criticism from an anthropologist (not a historian) who, incidentally, complains that scholars and others don't talk enough about Communism's "achievements". (p. 118) One of the death counts of Communism more commonly used by the Foundation (among other counts) is that of 100 million derived from The Black Book of Communism. That article shows that it was published by a university press, was a work of scholarship, and received praise, not just criticism. Yet, a couple of editors claim without evidence that it is fringe. For the article to call the anthropologist's view "scholarly analysis" and not the work of the historians who attribute tens of millions of deaths to Communism is POV.

    The criticism section should only use sources that discuss the Foundation; anything else is WP:Synthesis and WP:Coatracking. Isabella Emma keeps edit warring the synthesis back in anyway, and even though the criticism of the 100 million figure is already in the article. If we find other academic sources that discuss the Foundation positively, then "Criticism" can be changed to "Reception". But right now, it's only criticism.

    I'm not very familiar with this noticeboard, but moderation does sound useful. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by Isabella Emma

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

    I think we should keep mention of the book because it adds context to the criticism/analyst part for the figure that is cited since she isn't the only one that criticized it. It shows the figure that is used is not really supported, in academic literature as Dave King pointed it out with the multiple sources that are on the page.Isabella Emma (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by AmateurEditor

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

    The material in the section currently is adequately described as criticism, so naming it "Criticism" seems reasonable to me. I would not consider Aeon (digital magazine) to be a scholarly publisher. However, I don't have strong feelings about the section name one way or the other. My participation on the talk page has only been to explain why two of the sentences in the section are inappropriate because they are writing about The Black Book of Communism and do not mention the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation at all, making inclusion of the sentences ("The 100 million victim number is taken from The Black Book of Communism. Historians and scholars have criticized the figure, saying numbers were inflated to reach the 100 million mark.[33][34][35]") not a criticism or analysis of the foundation, a WP:COAT concern, and redundant with the last sentence in the section ("The 100 million estimate favored by the foundation is dubious, Ghodsee says, as their source for this is the controversial introduction to the The Black Book of Communism by Stéphane Courtois.[32]"). AmateurEditor (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces

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

    Summary of dispute by Horse Eye's Back

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

    I’m in the middle on this issue, I do think we should include the criticism of the Black Book of Communism’s death toll but only as it pertains to its use by the the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. The page isn't the place for general of criticism of the Black Book of Communism, some people are trying to include critiques of the Black Book of Communism which don’t even mention the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in passing. As for the name I think the general idea is either to have a criticism/controversy section or to incorporate that same material into the rest of the page, I don’t remember ever coming across a page with a “scholarly thoughts” category. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Isabella Emma was the whole reason we are here, if they were a sock the entire time this DRN is pointless and also fruit of the poison tree. I will not be participating here anymore or regarding this DRN as valid, thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    • Volunteer Note - The question of naming a section is probably better decided by RFC. If there are specific issues about what to include in a section, they can be decided by RFC, although moderated discussion is a good way to identify candidates for inclusion in a section. When responding to the invitation to this discussion, please indicate whether you want moderated discussion. Moderated discussion can be conducted if at least two editors think that it will be useful.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Joint Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#US_withdrawal

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    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

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    I claim that the article is biased. It refers to U.S. infringements as "withdrawal" while referring to Iranian ones as "violations". At first, the user HistoryofIran claimed that the sources use this terminology, however, I provided several sources which refer to U.S. infringements as "violations". Following this, the user had no further reasoning for their argument. it is a legal fact that one cannot withdraw from an agreement with no withdrawal clause -- hence the U.S. cannot withdraw this agreement, it can only violate it, this is a legal fact and pointed out by several news sources I linked earlier. Second, U.S. infringements are labeled "withdrawal" while Iranian infringements are labeled "violations". The other editors claim that "violation" is POV. There are sources (some of which I pointed out in an earlier post) which use both terminologies for both the U.S. and Iran -- it is clearly biased to extend the POV argument to the U.S., but not Iran. I offered a compromise which is that both U.S. and Iranian violations be labeled as "withdrawal" or "partial withdrawal", which resolves the POV argument, but it appears that this compromise was not accepted.

    As I say on the talk page -- this is not a political argument, but a legal and linguistic one. Additionally, if the terminology "violation" is considered "POV" then it is reasonable that it not be applied to either the U.S. or Iran, particularly when there are sources using "withdrawal" for both sides. To arbitrarily choose "withdrawal" for the U.S. position and "violation" for the Iranian position stinks of political bias.

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#U.S._Violation_vs._Withdrawal

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    This is not a political argument -- it is an attempt to reduce the bias and POV in the article as wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. I offered a compromise which is that both U.S. and Iranian violations be labeled as "withdrawal" or "partial withdrawal", which resolves the POV argument, but it appears that this compromise was not accepted.

    This should be arbitrated by more senior editors and the POV/bias of the article reduced.

    Summary of dispute by HistoryofIran

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

    Summary of dispute by Springnuts

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

    Joint Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#US_withdrawal discussion

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

    Sons of Josiah king of Judah

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    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

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    If your editors are not familiar with the Bible and its history of the people in it, they should not write about them. I came across your article, because I was searching for a quick spelling of one of Josiah son's name and I found that one of them, Zedekiah, is listed, according to one of your editors, as being Josiah's uncle; that is incorrect. "Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar." - Proverbs 30:6.

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

    No such discussions found.

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Whoever writes about God, His Word, and the people in it, needs to be correct! Your editors cannot just write without studying it. They, as well as whoever allows this to become public knowledge with errors, will have to be accountable not to men, but to God. "But I tell you that men will give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken." - Matthew 12:36

    Summary of dispute by No one else

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

    Sons of Josiah king of Judah discussion

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

    Talk:Wow! signal

    – 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

    At least 3 editors (Deeday-UK, David J Johnson, and Crossroads) refuse to allow me to add a couple of lines that have been widely covered by most major news portals about astronomy, space, & physics in secondary reliable sources:

    https://astronomy.com/news/2020/11/sun-like-star-identified-as-the-potential-source-of-the-wow-signal?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+astronomy%2ForOJ+%28Astronomy.com+News+-+Presented+by+Astronomy+Magazine%29
    https://phys.org/news/2020-11-amateur-astronomer-alberto-caballero-source.html
    https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/origin-of-wow-signal-found/
    https://interestingengineering.com/amateur-astronomer-finds-possible-source-of-wow-signal-after-43-years
    (very important Spanish newspaper) https://www.abc.es/ciencia/abci-situan-origen-enigmatica-senal-radio-estrella-como-202011280130_noticia.html
    https://hackaday.com/2020/11/25/the-wow-signal-and-the-search-for-extraterrestrial-intelligence/
    (Daily Mail appears to be most read paper in the UK but considered not reliable in Wikipedia) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8985997/Amateur-astronomer-traces-possible-source-notorious-WOW-signal.html

    Two of them already said: "Include it when you find a reliable source" and "or at least talked about as widely as Paris's one was".

    They also say (apparently contradicting themselves) that it must be peer-reviewed by a journal in order to appear in Wikipedia. I respect this opinion, but my humble opinion is that not everything that is in Wikipedia must be peer-reviewed by a journal.

    Moreover, just the sentence previous to the one I wanted to include: "No nearby sun-like stars were within the antenna coordinates, although in any direction the antenna pattern would encompass about six distant stars" , actually has a source which is not peer-reviewed by a journal: http://www.setileague.org/articles/calibwow.htm

    Therefore, there is clear contradiction between allowing non-peer reviewed sources such as the one mentioned above, and not allowing the ones I provided.

    Reply to Summary of dispute by David Johnson:
    1. My initial request for dispute resolution was denied only because I didn't include all the editors involved.
    2. I was blocked once not twice for adding the same content (not reverting) with new sources. He could have been banned for reverting my contributions.
    3. His COI accusations are unfounded.
    4. His accusation of me 'deleting (with bad intention) other editors comments on the article Talk page' is also not true. I initially deleted the thread I started because I thought consensus was reached; later I learned how to archive it.
    5. IMO it does not matter that the original article was written by an amateur astronomer. The secondary sources are abundant and reliable.
    6. IMO the fact that (some of the) other commenting editors have been against my changes is not an argument. ExoEditor (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC) — [reply]

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

    [[1]]

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    I'd glad if just Wikipedia policies are applied, which as far as I'm concerned states that a new that is widely covered in detail by several secondary reliable sources can be included. I'm more than glad to debate about the way the sentence I suggested can be written in the WOW! Signal page. I have previously contributed to that article and I would like to be allowed to continue doing so, even if it's just with a couple of lines for now.

    Summary of dispute by Deeday-UK

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

    Summary of dispute by David J Johnson

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

    This is the second time ExoEditor had brought the dispute to this page. The initial one being rejected a few days ago. This person has already been blocked twice for edit warring and warned for deleting other editors comments on the article Talk page. They do not seem to understand that it is the original news by a amateur that is subject to the reliable source comments and any amount of subsequent news reports does not make it a reliable source. There is also some evidence that there is a possible WP:COI here, raised by 2804:d57:2e84:d000:1016:8a05:318f:9285 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) All other commenting editors have been against ExoEditor's changes. David J Johnson (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by GurrenLagannTSS

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

    Summary of dispute by Crossroads

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

    Summary of dispute by Jswhitten

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

    Summary of dispute by

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

    Talk:Wow! signal discussion

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

    Bear Witness, Take Action

    – 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've proposed a few edits to fix significant mistakes in the lead and to add notable supporting sources. Most importantly, that an event was a one-off, when it is in fact recurring. The editor who originally wrote the article responded by saying no change is necessary. I cannot edit the article myself since I have a COI.

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

    Talk:Bear_Witness,_Take_Action

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    It would be great to have an experienced Wikipedia editor weigh in here. Thank you.

    Summary of dispute by Gerald_Waldo_Luis

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

    Bear Witness, Take Action discussion

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

    Talk:Dario Hunter

    – 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

    It appears that numerous editors are repeatedly inserting info into the talk page that violates WP policy. Editors removing it cite valid WP reasons (eg. WP Libel, WP no personal attacks, BLP policy), however editors keep adding it back without valid WP reasons cited. Most of the editors adding it back are IP editors. This appears to have been going on since the beginning of the year.

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dario_Hunter&action=history (Note: the Talk page is the page at issue. So discussion has taken place in the Talk page history.)

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Reverse the edit that has added material violating WP policy (I would do it again, but it seems futile), protect the page.

    Summary of dispute by 188.143.233.210

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

    Summary of dispute by Nora Puchreiner

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

    Summary of dispute by 46.32.66.121

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

    Summary of dispute by 62.192.168.106

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

    Talk:Dario Hunter discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=991585381"