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 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.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Yasuke | Closed | Tinynanorobots (t) | 2 days, 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 23 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 23 hours |
Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader) | New | Crawdaunt (t) | 1 days, 9 hours | None | n/a | ProfGray (t) | 15 hours |
Asian fetish | New | ShinyAlbatross (t) | 3 hours | None | n/a | ShinyAlbatross (t) | 3 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 19:46, 16 September 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]Yasuke
[edit]Closed. There are a few problems with this filing. First, the filing editor has not notified any of the other editors. Second, the filing editor has misspelled the names of three of the editors. Third, the question may be an issue about the reliability of a source. If so, the issue can be better answered at the reliable source noticeboard. Fourth, there is an RFC in progress. It is not clear whether the topic of this DRN request is related to the topic of the RFC. If this is a question about the reliability of a source, file a request at the reliable source noticeboard. Otherwise, resume discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader)
[edit]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 declared a very very loose COI in good faith, and this has led to an issue with the articles' original writer who is disqualifying all my comments and accusing me of WP:CANVASSING when I have not, and opening formal move proposals in my name when I have not. If someone would be willing to just chime in and watch, I think there's perfectly reasonable discussion to be had here. But any further attempts by me to encourage WP:NEUTRAL tone are not going to be helpful on their own.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Extensive civil discussion with the user, on the Talk page itself. The tone of the civil discussion isn't nasty by any means, but there is a clear impasse.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
The user @Desertarun opened a formal Requested Move in my name when I did not propose a specific requested move. Please close this, as I have not requested this move. All I requested was conversation with external viewpoints included, such that when I might* propose a requested move, it already had some consensus as to how best to title articles per WP:CRITERIAORDER.
Summary of dispute by Desertarun
[edit]The dispte is over a requested move. That discussion is taking place here;[[1]]. Having the dispute in two different places is non-sensical, so I won't be engaging with the process on this page any further. Desertarun (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader) discussion
[edit]- FYI. I have commented on the discussion and attempted to identify the points of disagreement. These all appear to be content, not conduct, issues. I am not a DRN volunteer per se, though I may be willing to help the users deal with their disagreements. ProfGray (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Asian fetish
[edit]- Sorry – quick correction. KSDerek did say their reason for believing Pornography and Sex Tourism are not relevant to "Asian fetish" is because the word "fetish" does not appear in sources in those sections. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2024 (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 have spent considerable time and research and publicly identified many issues on this article, which I then proceeded to fix. User:KSDerek disagreed with my changes wholesale, identifying 4 specific complaints, but not providing specifics about the rest. I agreed with 2 of the complaints but KSDerek reverted the entire set of changes I worked on.
Those specific complaints were:
1. Removal of Hyphen Magazine article citation - used in the article to cite a top-selling pornographic DVD in 2005 (I agreed to restore this)
2. Changing Rothman's text to cite instead Rothman's primary sources for the same research – Zhou & Paul and Shor & Golriz. I pointed out that Rothman makes a factual error with the Shor & Golriz study. (I agreed to restore this if a note about its factual inaccuracy is included)
3. Criticism of Shor & Golriz's findings. It's not really Wikipedia's job to debate the truthfulness of published research, so I refused to remove this. My edits reflect what the published research said.
4. Arguing that if interracial marriage stats are not relevant (which we agreed on), then pornography and sex tourism are also not relevant (which we disagreed on). I don't think there's a decisive way to explain this, but also, KSDerek has not written why they think this, either. I did not remove the Pornography section and I made only insubstantial changes to the Tourism section.
A previous dispute with a previous IP user resulted in that IP user going silent. (There are two IP users technically, but every indication is that they are the same person.) I dealt with every issue they raised (mostly by explaining the misconception) and made a new edit incorporating new research.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Asian_fetish#Regarding_recent_edits
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Identifying the proper way to discuss and resolve complaints about edits. Identifying what Wikipedia editors can and can't do with regards to representing sources. Thank you in advance for your time.