Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
 |
|
| 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 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.
| ||||||||||||
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Maratha Confederacy | New | Mohammad Umar Ali (t) | 3 days, 9 hours | None | n/a | Timtrent (t) | 2 days, 16 hours |
| Elissa Slotkin | New | Andrew.robbins (t) | 3 days, 3 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 7 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 7 hours |
| Gangubai Kathiawadi | Closed | Ankitsalsa14 (t) | 2 days, 10 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 7 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 7 hours |
| Naseem Hamed | New | Mac Dreamstate (t) | 9 hours | None | n/a | Mac Dreamstate (t) | 9 hours |
| Killing of Laken Riley | New | Gottagotospace (t) | 1 hours | None | n/a | Objective3000 (t) | 1 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 22:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 | If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputes[edit]
Maratha Confederacy[edit]
– 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
- Mohammad Umar Ali (talk · contribs)
- PadFoot2008 (talk · contribs)
- Rahio1234 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
About territorial peak of an empire and what information to be included in the into para(s) of the article and what not to be included.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Maratha_Confederacy#WP:RAJ_claim_misunderstood_by_Rawn3012 Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Maratha_Confederacy User_talk:Mohammad_Umar_Ali#May_2024
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Plz see the WP:RS sources and take decision from a neutral point of view. Any article needs to have information of itself not others here in Maratha Confederacy article Mughals are discussed more in 1st para than the Marathas. Not much have been described about Marathas in intro paras even after so much information exist about them.
Summary of dispute by PadFoot2008[edit]
Summary of dispute by Rahio1234[edit]
Comment by Timtrent (uninvolved)[edit]
Please see the edit warring noticeboard discussion filed since this discussion was opened here. I make no comment on this, nor on that discussion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Maratha Confederacy discussion[edit]
Elissa Slotkin[edit]
– 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
- Andrew.robbins (talk · contribs)
- Orca (talk · contribs)
- Drmies (talk · contribs)
- LegalSmeagolian (talk · contribs)
- Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk · contribs)
- JayBeeEll (talk · contribs)
- Alpha3031 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Dispute as to the neutrality of characterizing Slotkin's "support of the strike" with a plain statement or quotes from reliable sources. No consensus from RfC leaves status quo in place, but status quo is seen as an inaccurate/slanted characterization by some participants in discussion.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW strike, Talk:Elissa Slotkin#Request for Comment?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
A decision on whether the reliable sources characterize the quote, how they characterize the quote, and whether part of the quote should be included in the article.
Summary of dispute by Orca[edit]
Summary of dispute by Drmies[edit]
Oh I'll keep it brief: a few editors have been fighting to keep this trivial NOTNEWS material in here for months. It's a bit of nothing, apparently originally inserted by a sock of User:Thespeedoflightneverchanges. User:andrew.robbins is making this into a--I don't know what, something irritating, and I wonder what wise editors like User:Muboshgu or User:Courcelles think about this. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by LegalSmeagolian[edit]
I don't have anything to add outside of there is no consensus for anything, at this point I say just leave it out. Not saying this is good reasoning or that I agree that NOTNEWS applies, just that I don't think it is a big enough deal to keep pushing. Maybe have another RFC in a few months/years once more critical perspectives of her tenure and actions towards labor have been done. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Dcpoliticaljunkie[edit]
Important context here is that this article has been the subject of repeated sock and meat puppetry with off-Wiki organizing being publicly admitted to (which resulted in even the talk page being ECP) with Cpotisch reporting that there's a team of editors who "hate Slotkin" attempting to push a POV here. Wrt this specific section of the article: it's been discussed ad nauseam and there's no consensus for the edit being suggested. Not sure how many venues this argument needs to be repeated in. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by JayBeeEll[edit]
Elissa Slotkin discussion[edit]
Zeroth question by volunteer (Elissa Slotkin)[edit]
There has already been an RFC, although the RFC was poorly written, and was closed as No Consensus. Before any further dispute resolution action can be taken, either at this noticeboard, or elsewhere, I have a question, which is: What, if anything, do any of the editors who have filed or responded to this request expect to be accomplished at this noticeboard? I am adding the closer, User:Alpha3031, because they noted in closing that a request for assistance could be made here or at another noticeboard. What, if anything, is anyone suggesting or asking to be done at this noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
This noticeboard usually facilitates moderated discussion. It isn't obvious to me whether moderated discussion is feasible. If some other service is being requested, it needs to be requested.
Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not reply to the statements of other editors. Just answer the question that I have asked. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Elissa Slotkin)[edit]
- To me, this comes down to acknowledging that leaving the status quo in place is not consistent with no consensus when the disputed text is so matter-of-fact. I'll save the elaboration on the process comments by certain editors above but would simply like to note that the immediate jump to blame on outside actors and implications levied on decisions that were overturned have been centered over the content dispute from the beginning. Obviously, deletion for the sake of NPOV isn't acceptable but for the sake of closure I do feel that there needs to be a content finding made here one way or the other. As to why this noticeboard and not somewhere else, I was simply acting on the suggestion of the closer and would be more than happy to relocate this if need be. andrew.robbins (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Alpha3031 (Elissa Slotkin 0)[edit]
Apologies for the delayed response. andrew.robbins, while it's not ubiquitous, omission of some particular material (especially contentious material) due to lack of consensus for inclusion is not unheard of either, and is supported by the Biographies of living persons policy. I believe the RFC in question is sufficiently malformed and underparticipated that it didn't really count for much in the grand scheme of things, but ultimately the participants were not able to come to a consensus for inclusion. If editors wish to continue to pursue inclusion near the end of discussion here, I believe this noticeboard may be of assistance in drafting a more appropriate RFC question, with clear options and a briefer and more neutral opening statement, though I would encourage any looking to do so to try to assess their prospects of success before embarking on such an attempt. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Elissa Slotkin)[edit]
The closer of the previous RFC has suggested that discussion at this noticeboard could formulate a better RFC. Please read DRN Rule E. This article and this discussion involve American politics because they involve an American politician. I have two questions for each editor. First, do you want to take part in discussion for the purpose of formulating a better RFC, and are you willing to follow WP:DRN Rule E? Second, do any of you have a proposal for a better RFC? In later discussion, we may discuss and further improve the RFC, but if someone proposes an obviously good wording, I may start the RFC and close the discussion. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not reply to the posts of other editors at this time; just reply to the request for a better RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Elissa Slotkin)[edit]
Gangubai Kathiawadi[edit]
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. This appears to be a conduct report. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has attempted to report edit-warring to the edit-warring noticeboard, but the report was malformed, and has warned the other editor for vandalism (but many disputes, even many conduct disputes, may not be vandalism. If this really is a content dispute, discuss at the article talk page, Talk:Gangubai Kathiawadi. That's what article talk pages are for. If this is an edit-warring report, report it properly at the edit-warring noticeboard. Do not report vandalism unless there is vandalism. Report other conduct issues at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Naseem Hamed[edit]
– 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
- Mac Dreamstate (talk · contribs)
- ActionHeroesAreReal (talk · contribs)
- Abo_Yemen (talk · contribs)
- JFHJr (talk · contribs)
- Jahalive (talk · contribs)
- The_MK (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is an impasse on how to describe, in the lead section, this boxer who was born in the UK, has only ever resided in the UK, and has only competed under a British boxing licence. He has Yemeni parents, which may qualify him for citizenship by descent. Various MOS have been invoked: MOS:ETHNICITY, MOS:IDENTITY, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT.
In the boxing world and Western mainstream media, he is primarily notable as a British boxer; in the Arab world, his Yemeni heritage is heavily emphasised. There are numerous reliable Western sources which describe him as solely British, and some Arab sources (of varying reliability) which describe him as Yemeni. Hamed self-describes as "British-Yemeni" or "Yemeni" on social media, and did so during his career by means of Yemeni flags and other symbology.
Extensive discussion at the talk page has resulted in a three vs three dispute on how to word the lead section: "British professional boxer", "British-Yemeni professional boxer", or "British professional boxer of Yemeni descent".
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Naseem Hamed#British / British-Yemeni
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Assist us in deciding how to describe Hamed in the opening sentence of the lead section, and whether it needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis or per the abovementioned MOS'es.
Summary of dispute by ActionHeroesAreReal[edit]
Summary of dispute by Abo_Yemen[edit]
Summary of dispute by JFHJr[edit]
Summary of dispute by Jahalive[edit]
Summary of dispute by The_MK[edit]
Naseem Hamed discussion[edit]
Killing of Laken Riley[edit]
– 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
- Gottagotospace (talk · contribs)
- TanRabbitry (talk · contribs)
- FMSky (talk · contribs)
- Objective3000 (talk · contribs)
- Cakelot1 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
This article is about a homicide that occurred in 2024. The suspect has been arrested and charged with murder, but the case has not gone to trial yet. We are discussing whether or not the body of the page should refer to the crime as a "murder" or not. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) is clear that we should *not* use the word "murder" in the title of the page, because nobody has been *convicted* of murder yet in this case. My view is that because we should not use "murder" in the title, we shouldn't be using it elsewhere on the page either, unless we are talking about the murder charge against the suspect or we are quoting someone. "Murder" is a legal term that is much narrower than "killing" or "homicide", and in my view, I believe the court is the one that gets to make the determination whether or not it's "murder". It's the court's job, not Wikipedians' job. I changed some instances of "murder" in the article to say "killing" or "homicide", but it was reverted by @FMSky. The users who have said they support using the term "murder" are @TanRabbitry and @FMSky. The users who support using other terms (like "killing") are me, @Objective3000, and @Cakelot1.
There has also been discussion about the title of the article on the Talk page, but since Wikipedia policy seems very clear about the title, I am not naming editors who provided their opinions on the title ONLY. I'm only naming editors who provided opinions on the use of "murder" in the rest of the article. I would like resolution regarding the language used in the article as a whole.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Killing_of_Laken_Riley#Title_(Edit_to_add:_and_language_in_the_rest_of_the_article_too)
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
A decision on the language to be used in the body of the article ("murder" vs. "killing"/"homicide"), except for instances where we are describing specific charges filed or quotes from sources.
Summary of dispute by TanRabbitry[edit]
Summary of dispute by FMSky[edit]
Summary of dispute by Objective3000[edit]
We are not judge and jury. There was no witness to the death. The accused is named making this a WP:BLP. We document what has occurred, not the result of a future trial WP:CRYSTAL. Unlike a newspaper, there is WP:NODEADLINE. The word murder should only be included in quotes until we know it is a murder. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)