Informal venue for resolving content disputes
"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see
WP:DNR.
|
---|
|
General | |
---|
Articles and content | |
---|
Page handling | |
---|
User conduct | |
---|
Other | |
---|
|
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?
|
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 |
Camille Vasquez |
New |
Throast (t) |
18 days, 7 hours |
Robert McClenon (t) |
14 days, 23 hours |
AGreatUsernameChoice (t) |
2 days, 2 hours |
Byrd Spilman Dewey |
Closed |
Flahistory (t) |
3 days, 4 hours |
Nightenbelle (t) |
1 days, 12 hours |
Nightenbelle (t) |
1 days, 12 hours |
Jesse Lee Peterson |
Closed |
Tedw2 (t) |
2 days, 22 hours |
Robert McClenon (t) |
2 days, 4 hours |
Robert McClenon (t) |
2 days, 4 hours |
Asian Australians in politics |
Closed |
SCN 1999 (t) |
1 days, 23 hours |
Robert McClenon (t) |
10 hours |
Robert McClenon (t) |
10 hours |
Tewodros I |
Closed |
Dawit S Gondaria (t) |
1 days, 23 hours |
Robert McClenon (t) |
1 days, 10 hours |
Robert McClenon (t) |
1 days, 10 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 18:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Archived DRN Cases |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 |
|
Current disputes
– 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
Disagreement over whether to include the name of the (at this point) non-notable law firm she works at. Following persistent reinstatement of the disputed material despite BLPUNDEL concerns, a discussion was started on the talk page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Camille Vasquez#Brown Rudnick
User talk:Bangabandhu#"Brown Rudnick"
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
An unbiased take on the issue by "disinterested" editors would be appreciated.
Summary of dispute by Strattonsmith
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Bangabandhu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Camille Vasquez discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
- Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Forgot about that. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by moderator (Vasquez)
I am willing to try to resolve this dispute in either of two ways. First, if the three editors agree, I will provide a Fourth Opinion. Second, if at least one editor requests an RFC, I will compose and start a Request for Comments. Please read the rules and comply with the rules.
So, will each editor please state in one or two paragraphs what they think are the issues, in particular, what they want changed, or left the same. Also, do you want me to offer a Fourth Opinion, and do you want an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes this should have gone to RFC. I've never seen this forum before and have no idea why it would end up here.12:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC) Bangabandhu (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First statements by editors (Vasquez)
I will repeat what I've already laid out at the talk page: I think the name of the law firm Vasquez works for, particularly, should be left out. This is because, without the firm being notable, inclusion of the name would be trivial; including it serves no purpose at this point in time unless one has a vested interest in promoting the law firm. This revision excludes the name while still giving sufficient context. Simply arguing that the name is verifiable does not justify including it because "Wikipedia is not everything".
Looking at the back-and-forth at the talk page, I have no confidence that me and the other two editors will be able to agree, so an RFC might be appropriate. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The law firm has now also been added to the infobox, which I would remove accordingly. Throast (talk | contribs) 10:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually read the requirements for notability? An entry is not necessary. There's abundant "coverage in independent sources" for example here, here, here, here, here, here, and more Bangabandhu (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by moderator (Vasquez)
User:Bangabandhu - Did you read Rule 8? Do not reply to the other editors. Reply only to me.
Any editor may make a statement. However, I will be composing an RFC within 24 hours. I will also ask the editors in the RFC not to argue with each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't read Rule 8, but I understand now and will reply only to you. You should know that your RFC is different than the matter in question. At issue here is whether there should be any mention of Brown Rudnick in the entry. The way it was posed to other editors asks whether Brown Rudnick belongs in the lede. It's placement in the lede might be worthy of an RFC, but it's different than what we were discussing. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second statements by editors (Vasquez)
You need not worry—I am not particularly paying attention to the trial!
I think including a notable person's employer is important to do and it should not be removed unless said person (or someone representing them) request this info be removed. It is only one line, can be removed at a request, and may help a highschooler writing an essay someday (highly improbable, I know). There's my two cents, but take them with a grain of salt. 𝙰𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚄𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚖𝚎𝙲𝚑𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 (ramble) 00:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back-and-forth discussion (Vasquez)
– 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.
- I do not see a discussion either at the article talk page nor the Talk page of Curiositykeeper. David notMD (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
another user keeps deleting a paragraph from the article that mentions a biography about Byrd Spilman Dewey and that the book won an award. The same user changed a heading incorrectly as well.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have tried to contact the person via messaging but they did not reply. They merely made the same edits again. They offer no explanation as to why the edits were made.
- Curiositykeeper deleted content once each at Founder and Writing career section, no repetition. David notMD (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
17 June 2022
curprev 22:09, 17 June 2022 Flahistory talk contribs 20,799 bytes +413 Undid revision 1093624659 by Curiositykeeper (talk) This will go to dispute resolution and be reported as vandalism. undo Tag: Undo
curprev 22:08, 17 June 2022 Flahistory talk contribs 20,386 bytes 0 Undid revision 1093624706 by Curios
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
The user making the edits needs to supply the evidence that the information is incorrect.
- In my outsider opinion, the matter is not whether the information deleted by Curiositykeeper is correct or not, but whether it is germane to the article. David notMD (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Curiositykeeper
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I removed the sentence "That the book served as an autobiography was confirmed in the 2012 biography of the Deweys, Pioneering Palm Beach: The Deweys and the South Florida Frontier, where the authors were able to match land records and events to the book's storyline. The Historical Society of Palm Beach County awarded the book the Fannie James Award for Pioneer Research Achievement" from the page on Dewey because it is not germane to a biography of Byrd Dewey. It is a promotion for the book that Flahistory wrote. These statements are not in the citations, but in the text and are solely promotional and do not add to our understanding of Dewey. There are also errors on the page concerning whether creating a plat of a section of town constitutes "founding." The town of Boynton was referred to as "Boynton" for several years before the Deweys platted the town. It had a train station, a post office, farms, and was included in the federal census as "Boynton" before the Deweys platted their property in preparation for sale. (a plat is a map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land, including streets, blocks, and lots) It's not that I don't think that Byrd should not be celebrated, but aggrandizing her is mainly to promote her book. Flahistory has figured out who I am and has attempted to contact me several ways including social media. I would have been happy to continue discussion on the Talk page, but am starting to feel harassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiositykeeper (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Byrd Spilman Dewey discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
- Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor of this filing. Also, the discussion at the article talk page has not always been civil. Please provide proper notice, and try to discuss the article content issue politely and see whether that helps. I am neither closing nor opening this case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2022 (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.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by
Tedw2 on 04:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC).
[reply]
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
On 6/16/2022 The Church Militant aired a documentary detailing the allegations of homosexual misconduct by the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson.
[1]
Larry Hockett left a message on your talk page in "June 2022".
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing.
I responded by saying it is not disruptive editing or poorly sourced. It is better sourced than allegation against Jimmy Swaggart with more credible victims. The public deserves to be warned.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
It's not unsourced or poorly sourced content. The link is to a credible documentary by a credible organization. It actually should be on the site to prevent a predator from taking advantage of people which you would see if you watched the documentary. Tedw2 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Not sure. I think the readers should be able to view the link and determine for themselves if the source is credible.
I don't think Larry Hockett has even watched the documentary.
Summary of dispute by Larry Hockett
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There's a pattern emerging in which Tedw2 is edit warring and using an unreliable source to make a contentious allegation about a living person. I'm encouraged by the fact that the user has started to discuss the matter on his user talk page. (I was replying to it when the user filed this.) Once his misconceptions about reliable sources, edit warring and BLP editing are corrected, I'm optimistic that there will be little need for further discussion. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute his characterization of Church Militant as an unreliable source. The documentary (which I don't think Larry Hockett even bothered to watch) has interviews with no less than 5 former members of Rev. Jesse Lee Petersons church who all describe homosexual advances or relationship. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson's former right hand man (Patrick Rooney) details a 10 year long homosexual relationship with the Reverend. In contrast, Jimmy Lee Swaggart had only one prostitute alleging misconduct. Wikipedia readers should have the right to decide for themselves if the information is the documentary is true. Tedw2 (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jesse Lee Peterson 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.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.