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.
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.
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:Los Angeles#Los Angeles name in infobox Closed ImprovedWikiImprovment (t) 3 days, 20 hours Robert McClenon (t) 10 hours Robert McClenon (t) 10 hours
Talk:Jack Evans_(Washington,_D.C._politician)#Digi_Media_redux New Sdkb (t) 3 days, 12 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 22 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 22 hours
Talk:Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry#NPOV issue New 1.144.105.29 (t) 2 days, 22 hours Redactyll (t) 2 days, 16 hours Redactyll (t) 2 days, 16 hours
Talk:Exoplanet Closed Planethunter91 (t) 1 days, 21 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 14 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 14 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 DRN clerk bot (talk) at 09:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)



Current disputes[edit]

Talk:Los Angeles#Los Angeles name in infobox[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by ImprovedWikiImprovment on 22:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC).

Talk:Jack Evans_(Washington,_D.C._politician)#Digi_Media_redux[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Sdkb on 06:46, 14 January 2019 (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

Evans has recently been involved in what the Washington Post and pretty much all the other local media outlets in D.C. are characterizing as a major scandal (see [1], [2], etc.), and some editors have been trying to add additional information about the scandal to his page. However, to do so would require overturning a consensus to only briefly mention the scandal, which was reached before as many elements of the scandal were known. Most of the editors participating in the discussion (including Evans himself, who is an editor) have been involved with the disputes on the page going way back, and they are (somewhat reasonably) asking others who want to jump in to go through all the history of the discussion, but since few are willing to do so, this has essentially had the effect of limiting the discussion to only a small circle. The people involved in the discussion seem to have reached an impasse, so I think a DRN may be appropriate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been ongoing discussion about the issue at the talk page, and I posted to the NPOV noticeboard a while back.

How do you think we can help?

By establishing a consensus about what information to include or not include about the reporting.

Summary of dispute by JohnInDC[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Nblund[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Bangabandhu[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Bonewah[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Evansjack1[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Swarm[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Snooganssnoogans[edit]

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

Summary of dispute by Masem[edit]

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

Talk:Jack Evans_(Washington,_D.C._politician)#Digi_Media_redux 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 on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors. In view of the large number of editors listed, another Request for Comments (in addition to the current one about a different controversy involving the same politician) would probably be more effective than moderated discussion with a large number of participants. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment - Moderated discussion with nine editors resembles herding cats. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry#NPOV issue[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by 1.144.105.29 on 20:35, 14 January 2019 (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

I believe that there are NPOV issues with Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry. In particular, I think that the article heavily favours Lewis Hamilton. I nominated the article for deletion, but the decision was "keep" and since then, editors involved in the discussion have taken that to mean that there are no issues with the article at all. During the AfD discussion, they insisted that there was no need to address NPOV issues and that a talk page discussion was necessary; now that the AfD is closed and a talk page discussion is open, they insist that there is no need to address the NPOV issues.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The article has been the subject of an AfD, talk page discussion and discussion at the F1 WikiProject.

How do you think we can help?

By reading and evaluating the article in terms of its balance to highlight where NPOV issues exist and how they can be fixed.

Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys[edit]

I believe that the issues has serious NPOV issues. The article heavily favours Hamilton—any time there is mention of a dispute or controversy between Hamilton and Rosberg, the article provides a defence of Hamilton, but nothing regarding Rosberg. Compare this passage on the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix: However, Niki Lauda, non-executive chairman of Mercedes, spoke in support of Hamilton after the race, saying "From my point of view Lewis was right" with this passage on the 2014 Monaco Grand Prix: Some pundits made suggestions of foul play, [this is unsourced] to which Hamilton, when asked if he thought Rosberg had crashed on purpose, replied "Potentially. I should have known that was going to happen". However, the stewards cleared Rosberg of any wrongdoing and team boss Toto Wolff refuted the conspiracy theory as "bull". Despite this, Hamilton made clear that he felt Rosberg had ruined his lap on purpose and, after starting and finishing the race second, announced that he and Rosberg were no longer friends. Hamilton's complaint about Rosberg's alleged actions in Monaco is given oxygen, but there is no discussion of Rosberg's view on Hamilton's actions in Hungary. There is a defence of Hamilton in Hungary, but no defence of Rosberg in Monaco. And it's like this throughout the article. There is an entire paragraph in the lead on the upbringing of Hamilton and Rosberg that has no immediate relationship to the subject, but portrays Rosberg as a child of privilege whereas Hamilton is the plucky underdog from humble beginnings. With no relation to the subject, I feel that this paragraph is biased and designed to get the reader to favour Hamilton. The entire article is little more than an extension of Hamilton's article, since very little else links to it. I also feel it is completely inappropriate for editors to be removing the NPOV banner from the top of the page when there is an active NPOV discussion on the talk page and to ignore requests for additional sources. 1.144.105.29 (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Formulaonewiki[edit]

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

Firstly, IP editor above is laughably incoherent with their arguments. I'll start by addressing the wrongful accusation that 'editors involved in the discussion have taken that to mean that there are no issues with the article at all'. The AfD discussion has not been taken to mean there are no NPOV; it is the lack of evidence you have given in the relevant NPOV discussion that has been taken to mean that. This is yet another example of how the editor above seems more set on spamming their upset about the article anywhere they can instead of doing anything meaningful or productive to resolve or amend any issues which they believe exist.

Secondly, the part you highlighted - 'Some pundits made suggestions of foul play' - is quite clearly sourced here, but the editor assumedly wished to neglect that in order to try and strengthen their argument.

Thirdly, addressing the inclusion of the paragraph which the IP editor has a particularly apparent dislike for: It literally states how 'journalists have contrasted the drivers' upbringings', thus explaining it's relevance, and it is something regularly referenced and discussed in coverage of the rivalry in a number of the articles cited in the AfD discussion that proved the notability of the article. Clearly it is relevant to the rivalry.

Finally, nobody in the NPOV discussion (which they have pointlessly copied and pasted parts of here) felt that the IP editor had provided any evidence of NPOV in the article. It has been quiet for three weeks with nobody in agreement IP editor or with any concerns relating to NPOV. All the IP editor highlighted here is that they believe there should be more detail in parts of the article. That is not a NPOV issue, and is something they could easily edit themselves if they believe the extra detail is required. The editor is running wild with their imagination about what certain sentences are 'designed to get the reader' to feel. Instead of fixing any supposed issues they have found, they have merely set upon edit-warring and voicing their dislike anywhere they can. The fact they have been unable to engage in meaningful discussion on the relevant pages and now voiced their upset here is further evidence of this.

TL;DR: Dispute overview is misleading; IP editor has not made any convincing argument for NPOV, their issues appear to be over details and disagreement with their own personal views; they have spent more time posting their upset everywhere instead of just making some simple edits to the article where they see fit. Formulaonewiki (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DeFacto[edit]

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

As I see it, the dispute is about whether content should be deleted from the article without first obtaining a consensus to delete it. The content in question is the reliably sourced and correctly attributed views of notable commentators. The editor who wants the content deleted is saying it contravenes WP:NPOV, but is comparing it with their own personal views rather than with the reliably sourced alternative opinions of other notable commentators. If alternative views are out there, then they should be brought to table and, taking account of their weight, balanced with those views already in the article. So I think the onus is on the complainant to provide reliable sources showing those alternative views that they assert exist, then the appropriate discussion can take place. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry#NPOV issue discussion[edit]

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

Per the first sentence in the "Location of dispute" link above, this dispute was originally located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Hamilton–Rosberg rivalry, and editors involved there have not been informed of this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: "All the IP editor highlighted here is that they believe there should be more detail in parts of the article." And as I repeatedly pointed out, that lack of detail is creating an NPOV issue. When Hamilton defied team orders in Hungary, there should be details of the criticism levelled against him and details of the defence of him. The article only provides the defence. This creates an NPOV issue because when Rosberg does something controversial—as in Monaco—the article only provides criticism of him and no defence. Everything might be referenced with reliable and verifiable sources, but it is clearly cherry-picking what details it provides to present Rosberg as a villain and Hamilton as sympathetic. You say I have been "laughably incoherent with their arguments", but I have not. I have consistently, thoghtfully and critically deconstructed entire passages of the article to try to demonstrate the issue and when you dismissed it, I tried again and again with subsequent paragraphs. The fact that your first comment in this discussion was to attack me rather than address the argument I made speaks volumes. You say that I have "spent more time posting their upset everywhere instead of just making some simple edits to the article where they see fit", but that is not true. When I went looking for more sources to support the article's claims and could not find them, I added a citation template which you immediately deleted, claiming it was sufficiently cited despite the language of the article suggesting it was far more prevalent than two sources. This entire article is little more than fancruft designed to promote Hamilton as the Greatest Of All Time. If it were up to me, I'd salt the article as I think it has no redeemimg value. It is impossible to write an objective article given the partisan nature of the British media used as sources. 1.129.111.27 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Note to participants: Please ensure to keep discussion to a minimum, as the thread has not yet been opened by a volunteer. New threads until opened can be discussed on the talk page of this article, however, please in the future do not discuss here until the article has been opened. Thank you! Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC) 02:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Exoplanet[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Planethunter91 on 21:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC).