Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. 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.

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 coordinator is Iazyges.

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.
  • 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.


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.

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.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Talk:Origin of_the_Romanians#Restructuring_the_article Closed Iovaniorgovan (t) 17 days, 12 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 6 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 6 hours
Talk:Tha Hla Shwe Closed Phyo WP (t) 8 days, 12 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 7 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 7 hours
Talk:List of_bitcoin_forks#Contentious_revert_by_Primefac New Fresheneesz (t) 4 days, 18 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 hours
Talk:Sara Ali_Khan#Subject_now_passes_GNG_based_on_the_significant_coverage_she_has_received Closed Rush922 (t) 3 days, 12 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 7 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 7 hours
Talk:Stephen F. Cohen#How is this OR?? Closed Humanengr (t) 2 days, 7 hours TransporterMan (t) 7 hours TransporterMan (t) 7 hours
Al-Khalid tank New 129.97.125.1 (t) 34 minutes None n/a 129.97.125.1 (t) 34 minutes

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 DRN clerk bot (talk) at 23:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


Contents

Current disputes[edit]

Talk:Origin of_the_Romanians#Restructuring_the_article[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Iovaniorgovan on 10:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC).

Talk:Tha Hla Shwe[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Phyo WP on 11:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC).

Talk:List of_bitcoin_forks#Contentious_revert_by_Primefac[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Fresheneesz on 05:01, 9 December 2018 (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

Note that I'm reposting this with a focus on the content, as suggested by User:TransporterMan.

A number of editors are consistently reverting additions to the page List of bitcoin forks even for additions that are well sourced. Multiple users have complained on the page that too much content has been removed. From what I can gather, these users seem to think the sources I used aren't reliable sources, that sufficient notability hasn't been shown, or both. I discussed this extensively with User:Ladislav_Mecir (since the other users doing these reversions haven't seemed willing to discuss), but we couldn't come to any understanding.

Comment on content, not contributors. You don't need to use the third person singular to comment on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I edited it to remove the comments on users' actions. Fresheneesz (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We only substantially discussed one of 8 sources I have to choose from. I still have no idea why these people think my edits aren't fit for wikipedia. Particularly this edit and the edit for Bitcoin Clashic that I proposed here.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've started a thread to discuss this issue. I've invited the users involved to comment and discuss. I've discussed extensively with the one user willing to have a discussion. I've proposed alternate edits based on the discussion with better and more sources. I've tried (and failed) to gain an understanding of why these users think my edits aren't up to wikipedia standards.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like to get external opinions on whether my edits are up to wikipedia standards or not (and if not, why not). I'm hoping for a review of the sources I presented in that thread and whether any or all of them are usable. While it seems obvious to me that no appropriate reasoning for rejecting these sources has been given, the discussion over a few weeks hasn't seemed to move anything forward, which is why I'm seeking an external opinion.

Summary of dispute by primefac[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Praxidicae[edit]

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

I have no vested interest in this and frankly I'm getting tired of the forum shopping. Wikipedia has standards, those standards are that we don't include everything and anything just because it exists. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Ladislav_Mecir[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Jtbobwaysf[edit]

I think (sorry I have not been following this dispute very closely) this dispute relates to user Fresheneesz's desire to add some content about Bitcoin Diamond to the List of bitcoin forks article and a few others editors opposition to adding the content. The editors opposed to it have stated that Bitcoin Diamond lacks notability as the sources are all primary, or are industry rag sources (crypto-industry rag sources are really awful). My reading of the sources shows that Bitcoin Diamond clearly lacks notability to be a standalone article. That said, I am unclear if it lacks notability to be mentioned in the List of bitcoin forks article. I think I would lean towards including the content, as I think it is encyclopedic (and the article would be a better List if it had more items in the list). Iff we include it, we would have to be quite strict to eliminate anything promotional from the article as this could turn into the promotion of a non-notable subject (aka investment). But I could also go along with the argument to exclude the content as lacking notability. Thus I suppose my vote on this issue is one of ambivalence. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by C933103[edit]

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

I am not actually involved in the dispute.C933103 (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:List of_bitcoin_forks#Contentious_revert_by_Primefac discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - The title of this filing is about an editor, not about edits. Try to focus on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    The title is the title of the thread on the talk page where the discussion was happening. Would you like me to rename this? Also, I assumed that this would notify users automatically (since it asked me for their usernames in a specific format). I'll notify them momentarily. Fresheneesz (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - There doesn't seem to be much interest in discussion here, and participation is voluntary. I will leave this open for at least 24 more hours, but this will probably be closed due to lack of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sara Ali_Khan#Subject_now_passes_GNG_based_on_the_significant_coverage_she_has_received[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Rush922 on 11:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC).

Talk:Stephen F. Cohen#How is this OR??[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Humanengr on 16:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC).

Al-Khalid tank[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by 129.97.125.1 on 23:08, 13 December 2018 (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

Inforbox 'origin' section, Pakistan was removed from the infobox by an editor about a year ago. Since then despite discussion efforts, a couple editors believe they have the right to dictate what is right and wrong. Editing on this page is heavily based on bias and personal opinion, rather than following norms on pages of this nature. For example other tank pages developed by more than one country feature both countries in the infobox, however this page has been targeted specfically due to the personal feelings of some editors.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

My last discussion on talk page under 'Unmerge al-khalid and mbt-2000' has no response.

How do you think we can help?

Brining in editors familiar with pages similar to this topic, and to consider 2 things: 1) Add Pakistan back to the infobox in the 'origin' section 2) Consider unmerging MBT-2000 and the Al-Khalid.

One or the other must happen.

Summary of dispute by Loopy30[edit]

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

Al-Khalid tank discussion[edit]

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