Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"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
Rafida	In Progress	Albertatiran (t)	33 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 4 hours	Albertatiran (t)	1 days,
AT&T Corporation	Closed	Emiya1980 (t)	3 days, 7 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 12 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 12 hours
Yasuke	New	Theozilla (t)	4 hours	None	n/a	Theozilla (t)	4 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 22:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:G12 Vision#Low_quality_.22Concerns.22_section

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Peterl on 21:27, 2 July 2016 (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:G12 Vision#Low quality .22Concerns.22 section (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Peterl (talk · contribs) HalcyonHaylon (talk · contribs) 68.204.96.62 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User HalcyonHaylon and now IP 68.204.96.62 are removing content that has been worked over extensively. The content is controversial, but has been the subject of much careful editing. The controversial section includes the paragraph: NOTE: If you are considering removing a link, you MUST provide strong, valid reasons for removing it. That you don't like or agree with the link is not sufficient. This page is regularly patrolled, and unsupported removals (or irrelevant additions) WILL BE REVERTED. Which has been removed. The users Have you tried to resolve this previously? Reverts with explanatory descriptions How do you think we can help? Does their behaviour constitute vandalism? I see that they don't agree with the content, but blatant removal of content that they disagree with is not right. If it is considered vandalism, then I would consider blocking appropriate. Summary of dispute by HalcyonHaylon Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 68.204.96.62 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:G12 Vision#Low_quality_.22Concerns.22_section 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.

Fairchild Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by TeeTylerToe on 23:10, 2 July 2016 (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 Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved TeeTylerToe (talk · contribs) BilCat (talk · contribs) Maury Markowitz (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a longstanding version of the article. Maury Markowitz has removed almost all content in the article about the A-10's predecessor, the development of aircraft like the A-10, any mention of the design influences of the A-10, content about how the air force came up with the requirements for the A-X program and the A-10 design. Along with being common sense this sort of background information can be found on other high quality pages like the F-4 phantom page and the su-25 page. Any attempt to return the article to the status quo is shortly reverted, demonstrably with the changes not even being read, just as an automatic reflex apparently. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I brought this issue up on the talk page. Waited a few days. Nobody objected. Then I reverted the changes. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Then, evidently, the changes were blindly reverted by the highly territorial user bilcat in a clumsy overbroad, reflexive rollback reverting even the addition of new sources replacing content that had previously been removed when it was claimed that it was unsourced. Bilcat's rollback summary was disengenously that my edit did not have consensus. Bilcat refuses to discuss the changes How do you think we can help? A lot of the dispute seems to center around a breakdown of communication. At times I ask a series of leading rhetorical questions. At other times I simply state that the article should cover the '45 ww2 A1 because it's the direct predecessor of the A10, and because the AX designs, including the A10 designs were measured directly against the A1. I mention that other articles like the F4 and Su25 article have a similar format. Bilcat claims not to understand, communications have broken down Moderator opening statement I've accepted this case as moderator and have reviewed the FE's statement. Awaiting statement from BilCat to proceed. Atsme📞📧 14:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BilCat Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As I've told TTT twice already, I'm not participating in this, but he went ahead with it anyway. My objections are detailed on the article's talk page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Maury Markowitz According to the nom's own statment, I was not involved in this dispute. This is correct, as I only learned there was any discussion on the topic after this DRN was already in-flight, and had no communications with the nom before the DRN was already up. As such, I believe I should bow out of this process. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Fairchild Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - Comment on content, not ?contributors. This noticeboard is to discussion of article content issues, not editor conduct. Please keep the comments limited to article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified one of the editors, but not the other editor. The filing party is required to notify all of the other editors. This case is being left open until the other editor is formally notified of the filing here. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - A moderator has accepted this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Moderator note - all parties have made a statement. Two refuse to participate here; therefore, I have no option but to close this case. Atsme📞📧 16:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pro-Beijing camp

– New discussion.

Filed by 182.239.79.93 on 09:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Pro-Beijing camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lmmnhn (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user involved insisted naming the location of dispute to "親建制派", but not "建制派"， which is offending since the earlier one is seldom use, but the later one is much more common.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Opening Talk, Help desk, but no appropriate response

How do you think we can help?

Stop naming the location of dispute to "親建制派", and respect naming the location of dispute to "建制派"

Summary of dispute by User:Lmmnhn

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

Pro-Beijing camp discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, but it has been brief and not has been long enough to warrant moderated discussion here. Also, the editors in question include two registered editors and an unregistered editor who may be one of the registered editors failing to log in. The filing unregistered editor has only identified one of the registered editors. The filing party is expected to list themselves as well as the other parties, and is also expected to notify the other parties, which has not been done. This case will be left in a new status for at least 24 hours to allow further discussion on the article talk page and to allow the other parties to be listed and notified. (If the filing party is a registered editor who failed to log in, they should identify themselves.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mahmoud Abbas#WP:RECENTISM

– New discussion.

Filed by Debresser on 22:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Mahmoud Abbas#WP:RECENTISM (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Debresser (talk · contribs)
• Nableezy (talk · contribs)
• Sepsis II (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A politician made a statement, expressing a point of view and leading to controversy. Two editors with a well-known POV block the addition of a short paragraph to the article about this politician on the grounds that it is recentism.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Just talkpage discussion.

How do you think we can help?

Advice on the proper balance between the need to provide information about views and controversies and the danger of recentism. in general, and in this case specifically.

Summary of dispute by Nableezy

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

Summary of dispute by Sepsis II

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

Talk:Mahmoud Abbas#WP:RECENTISM discussion

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