Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRN)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:DRN" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:DNR.
Skip to threads Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread(purge cache)
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, mediation, 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. 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 guidelines and policy when discussing issues. 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.

The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, whose role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. The coordinator also collects monthly metrics for the noticeboard.

The current co-ordinator is Robert McClenon (talk).

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.

  • Refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment only on the contributions not the contributor. 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.
  • 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.
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 this page 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) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Talk:Day Without_a_Woman#Organizers.3F 4Needs Attention Funcrunch (t) 13 days, 16 hours Robert McClenon (t) 16 hours Robert McClenon (t) 16 hours
Talk:KK FMP#Merge_with_KK_FMP_Beograd 7Closed Snowflake91 (t) 3 days, 16 hours Yashovardhan Dhanania (t) 2 days, Yashovardhan Dhanania (t) 2 days,
User talk:Bennyben1998 7Closed Macrakis (t) 3 days, 11 hours Yashovardhan Dhanania (t) 2 days, Yashovardhan Dhanania (t) 2 days,
Talk:Dutch letter#Banket 6Resolved Example (t) Unknown Yashovardhan Dhanania (t) 4 hours Yashovardhan Dhanania (t) 4 hours
Talk:Microaggression#Unbalanced 2 7Closed Alienkind (t) 1 days, 11 hours TransporterMan (t) 14 hours TransporterMan (t) 14 hours
Talk:Toonz 7Closed (t) 14 hours TransporterMan (t) 14 hours TransporterMan (t) 14 hours
Talk:Hydraulic fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Rationale_for_moving_sections_of_this_article 7Closed Kennywpara (t) 1 hours Yashovardhan Dhanania (t) 25 minutes Yashovardhan Dhanania (t) 25 minutes
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 10:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


Current disputes[edit]

Talk:Day Without_a_Woman#Organizers.3F[edit]

Pictogram voting wait red.png – Needs attention.
Filed by Funcrunch on 17:57, 16 March 2017 (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

There is a dispute whether and how to include the information that one of the Day Without a Woman event organizers was convicted of terrorism. A further complication is that one of the cited sources for this information apparently calls into question whether or not this person was actually an organizer of the event. There is also a dispute over whether or not consensus has been reached regarding the inclusion of this information

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Help decide whether consensus has been reached, and whether including this information is in line with Wikipedia policies, BLP in particular.

Summary of dispute by E.M.Gregory[edit]

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

A straightforward matter of a widely-covered aspect of a political protest (the fact that one of the protest leaders was convicted of participating in the 1969 PFLP bombings in Jerusalem. To me, it seems clear that coverage of this fact is sufficient to merit inclusion in this brief article. Some of the coverage is detailed on talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I think WP:RFC would be/would have been a more logical step. And suggest that we close this and start an WP:RfC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sir Joseph[edit]

A person helped in the organization of the strike. This person is being identified and there is absolutely no reason not to include that she's a convicted terrorist. Simple as that.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tagishsimon[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Hennesseyvebss[edit]

In my opinion it is not an issue of whether the individual is listed as an organizer. The issue is characterizing the individual as a "convicted terrorist" in a 40 year old completely unrelated matter is an obvious way to color the article, and the Day Without a Woman event, as somehow a fringe, terrorist-related event. In my opinion, it is a NPOV issue and the "convicted terrorist" part should not be included on this page.Hennesseyvebss (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Megalibrarygirl[edit]

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

We were having a discussion about whether we should add the information about the organizers and their names. One of the alleged organizers, Rasmea Yousef Odeh is a convicted terrorist, although there are also sources that say she claims it was a false confession. Adding the info was considered a potential BLP violation by some editors. However, there is another issue: and that is whether she was one of the planners or was just a vocal supporter. I just went back through the sources and here's what I've found:

The source originally used to add Odeh by Haaretz states she wasn't one of the organizers at all. The official website doesn't list her either.

However, other reliable sources do discuss her as an organizer, though many of these are a reaction to this article, which is a letter of support for the strike in the Guardian where she (and other women) call on feminists to mobilize on March 8. But the Guardian letter doesn't explicitly say she (or Angela Davis who is now listed in the Women's March article) were part of the planning and a link to her profile does not state she is part of the Women's March.

Because of this letter to the Guardian, sources like Fox News, and Snopes make it clear that this is their source for describing her as one of the planners of the Women's March. The letter to the Guardian only asks for feminists to take part in the march. It doesn't state that the writers are planners.

I propose that if she's added at all, it be done so under a controversy section since it's not clear that she was a planner or just a supporter. The idea that she was a planner did cause controversy. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

March 8 has been celebrated by women's marches and strikes since 1911 [1], a number of leftist/feminist groups in the U.S. had planned marches and protests before the Feb. 14 [2] twitter announcement by the organizers of the Jan. 21 demonstration that you cite. It would certainly be unusual for there to be a single tightly defined gorup of organizers for a movement of this type, progressive protests are usually more like that Jan. 21 event, i.e., a group may issue a call, but groups act as a coalition, often with the kind of reservations expressed in the call to participate that Odeh signed in The Guardian, certaily a reliable source for understanding how leftist mas protests are organized. Here is that call [3], Note that it is dated Feb. 6, an entire week before the organizers of the Jan. 21 Women's March issued their call for participation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I get where you are coming from, E.M.Gregory. Maybe it would be better to talk about the groups rather than the organizers themselves. I hate arguing with you about this, since I have a ton of respect for you. I'm just not convinced that we should put in Odeh and Davis, etc. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I left a pair of comments on the talk page today, pointing out that the conversation of the impact of the participation of Sarour and, especially, of Odeh, has had on participation and on progressive alliances: people and groups pulled out of the Day without a Woman because of the attention she brought. When progressive coalitions include supporters of terrorism, these controversies get covered in the paper (and both individuals and groups leave coalitons). (I am reminded of the conversation that swirled around A.N.S.W.E.R.'s support for terrorist groups; included on their page.) Similarly, Odeh's conviction for terrorism is a longstanding part of Arab American Action Network's page. Odeh role as co-signer of the call for the strike, is significant and I continue to think that it should be mentioned. Perhaps we need an RfC? to bring some fresh eyes to the quesiton.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That is very significant, E.M.Gregory, but might we be promoting the very same thing if she's not actually a bona fide organizer? Is the fact that the Arab American Action Network was involved what makes her an organizer? Like I mentioned above, she's not listed as an organizer on the official page and all of the sources I've read that say she was an organizer source that from that Guardian Post where she was one of the writers of a letter of support. I'm cool with an RfC. I think that both sides here are engaged in good faith editing where we have interpreted the information differently. It might be good to have someone fresh to sort out the issue! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl As best I can figure out, while March 8 is a traditional date for women's protests, the first call for an American women's protest strike on March 8, 2017 was issued by Odeh, Angela Davis, and 6 other activists on Feb. 6, with the organizers of the Jan Women's March endorsing that call on Feb. 14, [4] and putting up an "official" page. Although darned if I see what makes it "the" official page, since there is at least the "International Women's Strike USA," (Here: [5]) and perhaps others.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Doom777[edit]

The real issue behind having or not having "Organizers" section, is Rasmea Odeh. She is a convicted terrorist, and if she is an organizer of the march, it would hurt the march's image in view of many.

As wikipedia editors, we're to be neutral. We're also not to judge whether or not she was an organizer, but rather if second sources consider her as such. There are a dozen sources saying she was. There is also at least one saying she wasn't, and the march's website doesn't mention her.

I think that we should list the organizers of the meeting, not in a special "organizers" section, and not in a controversy section, but just insert it somewhere where it fits, maybe in the head section. The organizers should be listed in order of imprortance, so maybe Linda Sarsour should be first, however Rasmea Odeh should also be mentioned as an organizer, since there are so many dependable secondary sources that include her. I don't think that Rasmea's terrorism conviction should be mentioned in the 'organizers' list.

I think maybe there is a place for a Controversy section too, and Rasmea's involvement should be mentioned as one of the controversies, again, only because there are many secondary sources writing about it, and it is notable

Summary of dispute by Another Believer[edit]

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

I have worked on the article some but have not followed this discussion closely and don't plan on getting involved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Day Without_a_Woman#Organizers.3F discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page, and proper notice has been given by the filing party to the other editors. Based on the number of editors involved, this might not be the best forum. Either formal mediation or a Request for Comments might be better. This case can be accepted by a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Robert McClenon, E.M.Gregory, Megalibrarygirl, and Doom777: I'm fine with going the RfC route at this point if no moderator will take on this case. (I believe we now have a quorum of involved editors though, as User:Another Believer responded that he does not intend to participate in this discussion.) Funcrunch (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    I note that E.M.Gregory has now created an RfC, though there are already objections to the wording. Funcrunch (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - There is widespread objection to the wording of the RFC. If moderated discussion is desired, a moderator is needed. Alternatively, a neutrally worded RFC should be started. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    I have requested formal closure of the RfC. I would like to have that issue resolved before starting a new one. Though I would still prefer the help of a moderator if anyone is willing to take on this case. Funcrunch (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    The RfC has been closed. Per this latest edit, I personally have no objection to how the names are currently listed in this article. Funcrunch (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - Is someone willing to moderate? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:KK FMP#Merge_with_KK_FMP_Beograd[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Snowflake91 on 17:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC).

User talk:Bennyben1998[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Macrakis on 22:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC).

Talk:Dutch letter#Banket[edit]

Pictogram voting keep-green.svg Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by JasonAQuest.

Talk:Microaggression#Unbalanced 2[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Alienkind on 22:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC).[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by on 19:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC).


Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by on 19:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC).

Talk:Hydraulic fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Rationale_for_moving_sections_of_this_article[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Kennywpara on 08:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC).