Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRN)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Button rediriger.png 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.
  • 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 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
James Charles (Internet personality) In Progress Benmite (t) 11 days, 2 hours MPants at work (t) 3 days, 9 hours Benmite (t) 4 hours
Public housing New (t) 6 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 days, 11 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 days, 11 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 20:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Current disputes[edit]

James Charles (Internet personality)[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Benmite on 21:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC).

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

In the "Public image" section of the article, there was information about controversies in which Charles had been involved, including a tweet made by him about getting Ebola from going to Africa, his participation in a social media challenge, and his attending of crowded parties during the COVID-19 pandemic, all of which were reliably sourced. This information was removed by valereee on the basis that it was trivia and unduly negative for a BLP, and she later mentioned the ten-year test and said that, in her opinion, this information would not be relevant in ten years because it would most likely not appear in his obituary, which I suggested was attempting to be a crystal ball. She added that these controversies were only covered at the time because these outlets needed to "feed the beast" and that the only way to properly have this discussion was to wait 6 years from now so that the ten-year test could be used. She also stated that we should try to be kind to Charles, as he was only 17 when he made the tweet being discussed, to which I replied that no further harm would be caused to him by including these things in the article as they were already talked about extensively by RSs, and that someone being 17 at the time of doing something does not mean it cannot be addressed on Wikipedia. I argued that due to the prevalence of these controversies in a number of articles from reliable sources, both from when the controversies originally occurred and in the years that have followed, it was clear that coverage of them was not solely due to recentism nor was including them in the article undue negativity, as they were addressed in proportion to their prominence in RSs. I also said that several of her arguments against putting that information in the article were introducing bias to the article, as they were based on her opinions about these situations. Prior to this discussion, Dreamy Jazz said it was trivia.

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

Talk:James Charles (Internet personality)#public image section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide suggestions on how to move forward with this discussion, and what to do about the content removed.

Summary of dispute by valereee[edit]

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

I believe this is trivia that represents undue negativity at a BLP. These things -- the ebola tweet, the mugshots post, the botox injections -- were included in lots of "Everything you need to know about James Charles" type of articles. If the ebola tweet is still being mentioned in ten years, sure, we include it. But listing every incident is just undue negative coverage of a BLP, IMO. None of this stuff seems important enough to include, really. Not for a living person, not this soon after the initial flurry of coverage. I've been arguing that we're including these things when we say "Charles has been involved in multiple contoversies" and don't need to provide a list of each of them.

Summary of dispute by Dreamy Jazz[edit]

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

The diff where the information was removed is here. I would note that from my point of view a lot of what was removed was "James Charles did X and then Y and Z said that was bad and then James Charles apologised". My thought was at the time if I asked someone in 5 years time about controversies from James Charles would these be even mentioned? Some of these may be the case, but personally I don't think any of them have enduring notability. However, this is just my point of view and I haven't been following the discussion since my last comment in May in that section. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

James Charles discussion[edit]

Procedural stuff and volunteer acceptance of the dispute.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@MPants at work, yes, I believe all parties are aware. —valereee (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Good! If they agree to participate, we'll get started. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think we're ready to get started. The locus of the dispute seems to be the content removed in this edit, by valereee.
As a reminder, our policy on writing about living people is very stricts, so objections like those outlined above by valereee and Dreamy Jazz must be taken seriously. But we're also writing an encyclopedia, and we can't do that if we exclude anything that might reflect poorly upon a subject, which means that we must also take Benmite's desire to include this material seriously.
Now, I understand the objections by Dreamy Jazz and valereee from their statements above, but Benmite, your arguments thus far seem very focused on refuting those objections. So I think a good place to get started would be for you to write up an argument for inclusion, to explain why the documentation of these incidents improves the article. Once we have that, we'll have a clear picture of everyone's ultimate goals here, which will help us find an outcome that resolves this.
Benmite, feel free to be as verbose or succinct as you like. But please focus on how this content improves the article, instead of explaining why you don't feel the objections to it are warranted. And Dreamy Jazz and valereee, I'd ask that you not respond directly to Benmite's edits (at least not this one, there's no requirement that you not engage at all with each other, here), but let me read it and ask everyone some questions regarding it and the objections above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
My main rationale for including this information is that the prevalence of each of these individual controversies in reliable sources, both from when they first happened and in the year(s) that have followed, shows that the impact that they've had on Charles's public image is undeniable. The scandals he's been involved in have evidently been a defining factor of his career, as shown by the many articles chronicling them, but simply lumping them all together is borderline WP:SYNTH since many of those that were only reported on in these exhaustive lists or less reliable sources are non-notable, while the ones I'm arguing to keep in the article were written about in detail by reliable sources when they happened.
Even retrospectively, these are easily considered by RSs to be some of the most prominent events, let alone controversies, to take place in Charles's lifetime as a public figure: The New York Times wrote in 2019 about the Ebola tweet, writing that it caused "a storm of controversy" to rage around Charles and also referencing his apology for the tweet. Also in 2019, ABC brought up the Ebola controversy to show how he had "courted controversy" in the past, as did The Atlantic. In 2020, PinkNews wrote an article about the "Mugshot Challenge", which they ended by talking about the Ebola tweet as an example of how Charles is "no stranger to controversy". Months after the "Mugshot Challenge" became a trend, Teen Vogue compared another trend (the "Holocaust Challenge") to it, and the only person who they noted participated in it was Charles. At the end of 2020, Insider included Charles's and other influencers' involvement in the "Mugshot Challenge" on their list of the "biggest beauty moments" of 2020. Last month, NBC News mentioned all of the instances in question to illustrate how a lawsuit against him was "just the latest scandal" for Charles. A Vulture list from 2021 also mentions all of the aforementioned scandals, marking the Ebola tweet as his "first taste of backlash" and adding that CoverGirl even tweeted out against Charles's post. While my edits on the talk page have been more defensive than explanatory or assertive, you can still check those to see some further explanations. benǝʇᴉɯ 06:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Benmite. That seems a very reasonable justification. So now my question is to valereee and Dreamy Jazz, if this material were to be condensed down, say, to 1-2 sentences each, and placed at the end of the section, rather than the beginning, would you still object to it? If so, please explain why. If you object to content on specific incidents, like the party during the Covid19 lockdown, we can discuss them individually.
Based on what I've read all around, shortening the content and moving it to the end as befits the less prominent controversies, while excluding the bit about the party entirely per WP:DUE seems like a great compromise, but of course, you all need to agree to it. If that's not the right route, we can still work to find something that is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with leaving out anything about the partying. benǝʇᴉɯ 02:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, no, not really. Pretty much the entire article is negative already, and it's a BLP. There are whole big sections about the feud, the sexting, the lawsuit for mistreating an employee...I don't think any of these minor bonehead moves adds anything for the reader. —valereee (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll note that Benmite is also insisting the other incidents all need their own section head, which again I think is undue negativity in a blp, and on including full date of birth from iffy sources. —valereee (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
So from what you're saying here, it seems you believe the entire article has an NPOV problem, in that it's unduly negative. If you like, we can do a source review here, and compare those results to the state of the article. It can be somewhat tedious, but I don't mind taking on much of the tedium of sorting the sources and compiling them into a data set. I would ask, however, that all the participants find any sources we're not currently using. It's a bit much to track down them all and do the work of compiling them.
As for the section headers, I think that may be worth discussing as well, but I'd like to hear what Dreamy Jazz has to say about my question above, first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants, yeah, I do really think the whole article is already unduly negative for a BLP. I feel like we're compromising already by including the lawsuit, which to me until we have an outcome feels like it might not even be worth including. If this were not a BLP, I'd be fine with just finding some middle ground and compromising, but with a BLP I just don't feel comfortable doing that. This is a living human being we're writing about, someone who has feelings. We can do actual harm. —valereee (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Re: sources. You'll find eighty gazillion, because it's clickbait. This is what online media is now, unfortunately. I'd suggest we limit ourselves to only top-level sources for assessing noteworthiness of the crap this guy's gotten attention for. —valereee (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Repeated re-addition of BLP DOB by Benmite. —valereee (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a living, breathing human being who can be hurt by this stuff, and this editor is simply refusing to leave it alone until we get consensus. Would someone please protect that article until we have consensus? —valereee (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @MjolnirPants: There are now two separate disputes regarding the same article, which Valereee already alluded to here. The first is about whether or not there should be subheadings underneath the "Public image" heading about Charles's feud with Tati Westbrook, the sexting allegations made against him, and the lawsuit filed against him by his former employee, discussion about which can be found here. The second is about whether or not his exact birth date should be included on his page, which was discussed here, here, and here. I can give a summary of each if necessary, though I first wanted to ask if it would be okay to discuss those in addition to the material already being disputed. I also saw above that you said we should wait for Dreamy Jazz's input before going further. benǝʇᴉɯ 10:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm away at the moment with unreliable internet, so I won't be able to properly reply until Monday though don't feel like you need to wait for further reply by me if things move on. I agree with valereee that as this a living person we are talking about we shouldn't make the article about them into a list of negative things they have done. Although the points we are discussing may be covered in many sources there should be a limit as to how much negativity should be in a BLP and the negative points should be weighed up to work out if such points are worth including in what is in effect a summary. However, I do see that we shouldn't make the article into a promo piece for him. I would say that the COVID party really is run of the mill and I would like to see it not included. However, I am more happy with the idea of having short sentences if any of the negative points here are added. Although I would argue that a good number of these negative points may not have a 10 year test pass, negative points with reliable sources shouldn't be ignored. Due to my use of mobile to edit right now I don't think I'm in a place to comment on any of the other points being discussed until I can use my computer. I'd like to add that I think section headers should be not used to give the name of a specific incident unless more than a medium to large paragraph is written about it. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Valereee, if you're not willing to compromise, why did you agree to participate here? If we can't have an earnest attempt by all involved to reach a resolution, then there's nothing we can do, here. Dreamy Jazz and Benmite have both indicated a willingness to find a compromise. I can help them do so, but I can't order them to do things your way.
Benmite and Dreamy Jazz, thank you both for indicating a willingness to compromise. Do you think that the a more succinct description than the one Valereee reverted, combined with the removal of the subsection headers would be something you both can agree on? I have to say that valereee's concerns are not unwarranted; for example, the fact that Charles became the first male spokesperson for CoverGirl is extensively covered in the sources, but given nothing more than a bare, single sentence in our article. Valereee may not be willing to compromise on this just now, but if the more neutral and positive information were to be expanded, the addition of these controversies would certainly have less of an overall impact on the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants, my apologies if I've misunderstood the process. Not very experienced here. I guess I didn't realize it was aimed at finding some middle ground even if that middle ground still represents a BLP violation? I usually -- in cases not involving a BLP -- would just let trivia go if some other editor was hellbent on including it. Are you saying I should have said I didn't think this dispute was appropriate for this noticeboard?
I am willing to compromise on almost everything, but on undue negativity in a BLP, not so much. Maybe this needs to be at BLPN so that others can comment on whether or not the section heads/listing of all negative incidents represent a BLP issue? Maybe also weigh in on whether the sources provided are enough to include full dob.
Also I feel it's not fair to say I'm unwilling to compromise. I've already compromised on including the lawsuit, which until it's settled is probably just recentism. People get sued all the time. I've compromised with the terms "Throughout his career he's been involved in multiple controversies" which is in both the section and the lead and was inserted to cover all the little random ones like botox injections, pandemic partying, ebola tweets, etc. I've already compromised, at the talk. I cannot figure out why anyone wants to include every bit of negative trivia just because low-quality sources are writing articles that list every stupid tweet. What's the rush? We have all the time in the world to get this right. If after ten years people are still mentioning the silly ebola tweet, fine, we add it. Ditto the pandemic partying, the botox injections, the whatever. But a sentence or two each for all of those things? No, it's undue negativity at a BLP IMO. Undue negativity at a BLP not something we can compromise on. The stuff is either undue or it's not, and this is a BLP so we have to get it right and we ought to err on the side of excluding, if we aren't sure. Undue negativity at a BLP is only something we can get consensus on, and so far we don't have consensus on including those things individually.
How about the sentence in the section, which is now Throughout his career Charles has been the focus of multiple controversies. we expand to Throughout his career Charles has been the focus of multiple controversies, starting with an early tweet about ebola.? That seems to be how the actual RS are using it -- as a demarcation point. —valereee (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
my apologies if I've misunderstood the process. Not very experienced here. I guess I didn't realize it was aimed at finding some middle ground even if that middle ground still represents a BLP violation? Valereee, I don't believe that any middle ground we find would be a BLP violation, and I don't think that either of the other two participants would, either.
This process aims to find a resolution. In some cases, that resolution would heavily favor one side, but in this case, both sides make valid points. For example, you said you wish to only use top level sources, while Benmite cited the NYT, The Atlantic, ABC and NBC News, all of which would rather easily qualify as top level sources.
I do think the mention of the controversies in the lede might be WP:UNDUE as well. It's certainly reflective of the article, but as you said, the article as it stands seems overly negative. And as I mentioned already, I think more positive/neutral material should be expanded. I wonder if much of this specific disputed material might seem less egregious in an article that's less overly focused on the negative.
If it helps, I will be happy to assist in expanding the positive and neutral coverage, but I'd like to see some agreement all around here before moving on to the next thing. So here's my proposal, which I believe Benmite and Dreamy Jazz will agree to as well:
  • Remove the subsection headers in the public image section.
  • Shorted the sexting and lawsuit paragraphs, merge them together and add mention of the mugshot challenge and a brief description of the ebola tweet.
  • Mention (but don't describe) the ebola tweet at the sentence from the lede about courting multiple controversies as a jumping off point.
  • Move that sentence from the end of the lede to in between the second paragraph and the (current) feud subsection.
  • Do not add mention of the controversies to the lede without a source characterizing his career as engendering many controversies, and in that case, keep the mention very brief, like "His career has been characterized by a number of controversies."
I believe these are changes we might all agree to. If we can do that, this I think this discussion can be closed as resolved and I'll be happy to watchlist the page and get to work expanding some of the more positive coverage. Or, if you like, we can address the DOB issue, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, give it a try. If I object to something, we can talk there. —valereee (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz and Benmite, would you agree to the changes in the bulleted list in my comment above? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Sure. Fine by me. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@MPants at work: Sorry for the late response. I'm in favor of some of the suggested changes, and against some others, due mostly to the fact that discussion about them hasn't been thorough enough. The discussion about whether or not there should be subsection headers stemmed from a prior discussion about the wording of the headers, and only involved three relatively short messages between Valereee and I (two from Valereee, one from me) so I think that should be discussed further before any conclusions are reached about what to do. Shortening the paragraphs about Charles's feud with Tati Westbrook and the sexting allegations made against him should also be discussed more extensively, since both paragraphs it were was already cut down by Valereee in these this edit which were was briefly discussed briefly discussed on the talk page, with the suggested changes to the Tati Westbrook section being supported by Dreamy Jazz. Small changes have been made to both the sections since those edits, but nothing drastic. I'm not sure if Valereee and Dreamy Jazz feel strongly about condensing these sections and merging them together now, but if they do, I think that also warrants a separate discussion. Everything else sounds fine. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Benmite, my initial thought for the need of a section for the lawsuit was because the structure of the sections didn't allow the lawsuit to fit in any other section. Ideally this is not "big" enough to warrant its own section at the moment. However, as it didn't fit in the other sections while also keeping the content chronological, a seperate section would have to do if we were not going to change or remove the other section headers. My thoughts are that having a section for something should generally only be there if it would be notable enough for inclusion in the lede. This is because if we don't think it is notable enough for inclusion in the lede, then having it listed just below the lede would suggest that it's notable enough for the lede. For those interested in reading about the lawsuit, scrolling down to or clicking in the TOC on "Controversies" will lead them to the information. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 10:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Forgive me, I completely misunderstood the compromise. Reading is fundamental! I would be in favor of shortening the lawsuit section, removing its header, and merging it with the rest of the "Public image" section. I'm not sure if it makes sense to combine it with the sexting section (or, if we decide to remove section headers, the information outlined in that paragraph) because the two instances only seem to be related insofar as they happened around the same time. I'm still not sure about cutting down the sexting section, though. Also, per WP:CRITS, we should probably avoid having a "Controversies" section. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Public housing[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by on 06:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC).
Closed discussion