Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

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? Request dispute resolution 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. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. 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. Become a volunteer 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 hours 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
Jessica Nabongo	Closed	Log6849129 (t)	6 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours
Neith	New	Potymkin (t)	6 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 13 hours	A. Parrot (t)	4 hours
Riley Gaines	New	Lisha2037 (t)	3 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	17 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, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Jessica Nabongo

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Log6849129 on 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC).

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 Jessica Nabongo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Log6849129 (talk · contribs) Valereee (talk · contribs) BubbaJoe123456 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The page is continuously edited to include incorrect information that are not even supported by the references the editors use. I listed the facts with countless high-quality references, but these were all ignored. A previous attempt by someone else to add the authors book to the description was removed due to "self promotion". This page is clearly run by people who seem to have a personal issue with the subject. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [1] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Review sources, remove unsupported statements from the page Summary of dispute by Valereee Ongoing COI with socking has been an issue at this article. I recommended that this editor go to Teahouse, but they decided to come here. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BubbaJoe123456 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Jessica Nabongo discussion I've pulled the name of the other woman out of the lead, as I think that may be what this editor is most objecting to, and it probably isn't strictly necessary there. Valereee (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Jessica Nabongo) I am ready to conduct moderated discussion about the Jessica Nabongo article when the conditions are satisfied for moderated discussion. The listing of parties appears to be problematic. One of the editors who is listed does not appear to have been involved in the controversy. On the other hand, an editor who has edited the article has not been included. The other editors have not been notified. It is not necessary to notify Valereee, who has made a statement. All editors who have either made disputed edits or taken part in the discussion should be listed and notified. Please read DRN Rule D and indicate whether you agree to follow these rules and whether you want moderated discussion. DRN Rule D is used when the topic is a contentious topic, and the article in question is a contentious biography of a living person. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. If you agree to moderated discussion, please state concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. If the conditions for discussion are met and the parties agree to moderated discussion, we will then continue with further discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Nabongo) There are only two pieces of information in the article that are crucial to the lead: the assertion, and the fact the assertion is disputed by Spotts. At minimum, the fact the assertion is disputed needs to stay in the lead. The support for the fact it's credibly disputed was removed in this edit by BubbaJoe123456 who had come in to do a copy edit and, while agreeing the content should be included in the lede, didn't think it needed to be cited and attributed there. I'd argued at the time that this piece of information needed a cite/attribution in the lead to a highly reliable source (an academic in a peer-reviewed journal) because it was that piece of info that was being edit warred over by COI/SPA editors, but agreed to let it go as a third editor, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, also thought it didn't need to be cited/attributed in the lead. Valereee (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC) First statement by possible moderator (Jessica Nabongo) So far only one editor has responded. I will begin moderated discussion when at least two editors reply, and those editors agree to the proposed rules and answer my content dispute question, and then only if there is a substantive disagreement between those editors. Please state what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. Also, please state that you agree to DRN Rule D. If there aren't at least two statements by editors who are ready for moderated discussion, I will close this dispute as abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Nabongo) 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.

Neith

– New discussion.

Filed by Potymkin on 23:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Neith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Potymkin (talk · contribs)
• A. Parrot (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An information about an ancient deity in Kemet has surfaced where the goddess Neith is described by ancient egyptians as 'Libyan Neith' shows the origins of this deity, user A. Parrot argues that this information is false and that Neith has purely egyptian origins while user Potymkin claims that Libyan Neith as described by ancient egyptians is the case, user A. Parrot presents Wilkinson and Lesko two egyptologists as proof that the deity is purely egyptian but after much reading reading on their works and presenting their books and page numbers in the talk page, even these egyptologists disagree with the point that Neith is purely egyptian and solemnly agree with Libyan Neith. after contacting Lesko via email she appears to be on board with Libyan Neith. the matter requires final settlement as neither party wants to concede.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neith#Claimed_Berber_origin

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think taking time to consider both sides of the matter and the arguments presented in the talk page can help resolve the issue

Summary of dispute by A. Parrot

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

Neith was worshipped in Egypt for more than 3,000 years, and the earliest evidence about her dates to the very murky Protodynastic Period. The sources describe her origins as uncertain; Five Egyptian Goddesses: Their Possible Beginnings, Actions, and Relationships in the Third Millennium BCE by Susan Tower Hollis says (p. 115) that Neith "presents the biggest puzzle of these goddesses".

At particular issue are two passages from books in the article's source list. Lesko 1999 says (p. 47) "Hermann Kees describes the northwestern part of the delta as being inhabited primarily by Libyans and points out that during the Old Kingdom Neith was characterized by Egyptians as Neith from Libya, 'as if she was the chieftainess of the neighboring people with whom the inhabitants of the Nile valley were at all times at war.' Other Egyptologists dispute this connection, however, and the first appearance of Neith is purely Egyptian." Wilkinson 2003 says (p. 157) "Although she was sometimes called 'Neith of Libya', this reference may simply refer to the proximity of the Libyan region to the goddess's chief province in the west­ern Delta."

Potymkin insists the article should describe Neith as Libyan or "Egypto-Libyan" and regards these passages in the sources as supporting that position. I believe the article should say scholars are uncertain about Neith's origins but describe a Libyan origin for her as a viable hypothesis—not a certainty. Potymkin continues to mischaracterize me as insisting Neith was "purely Egyptian". A. Parrot (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Neith 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 editor on their talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Neith )

I am ready to conduct moderated discussion about the Neith article .

Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to follow these rules and whether you want moderated discussion.

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. If you agree to moderated discussion, please state concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Neith)

Thank you @Robert McClenon for offering to help to make wikipedia articles more comprehensive I am happy that you are able to provide some of your time for this issue, in the Neith article I would like to keep the following statement in the lead of the article: "was an early Libyan deity  worshipped by Libyans and ancient Egyptians. She was adopted from Libya (or was a divinity of the local Libyan population in Sais in Egypt, where her oracle was located). Her worship is attested as early as Predynastic Egypt, around 6000 BC." along with all of its relevant sources, this is due to sources I provided from UNESCO library, World History Encyclopedia which their publications are recommended by many educational institutions including:

• Oxford University
• Common Sense Education
• School Library Journal
• MERLOT
• University of Wisconsin-Madison

and several archeologists and egyptologists and multiple other sources that confirm the statement to be kept. Potymkin (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (Neith )

Each editor has stated briefly what they want to say about the origin of Neith. One editor says that she was a Libyan deity whose worship spread to Egypt. Another editor says that her origin is uncertain, but that the hypotheses include a Libyan origin. Is either editor willing to try to craft a compromise wording that will be acceptable to both editors?

DRN Rule A states that each editor is expecting to participate in discussion at least every 48 hours. If either of you will need longer wikibreaks, please let me know and we will see what alternate rule we can set up. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Neith)

@Robert McClenon thank you for taking the necessary time to analyze both view points correctly, I have crafted the terminology Egyptian-Libyan Deity that is acceptable which I suggested on the talk page Talk:Neith#Claimed Berber origin to try to resolve the issue. I am also open to suggestions of terminology that indicate the Libyan roots of Neith. the terminology already present at the article "she was adopted from Libya or was a divinity of the local Libyan population in Sais in Egypt, where her oracle was located" is sufficient to describe multiple viewpoints in my honest opinion. Potymkin (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: My apologies for not responding. I haven't participated at DRN before and am a bit confused by the instructions and the format. E.g., I'm not even sure if I'm putting this comment in the right place—please relocate it if I've gotten it wrong.

My problem is that I don't know what compromise Potymkin would be open to that reflects what the sources actually say. Potymkin's argument is built on synthesis, ably summed up in this comment by User:Lone-078 (who is a party to this dispute but hasn't been notified to discuss here). It is an Egyptological hypothesis, but not one that is universally held, that Neith originated among the Libyan peoples of the Protodynastic Period. It is a certainty that Libyan peoples 2,000 years later worshipped her. But that does not mean she is certain to have been Libyan or Egypto-Libyan at her origin. Any claim to the contrary is a misrepresentation of the sources. A. Parrot (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Riley Gaines

– New discussion.

Filed by Lisha2037 on 14:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Riley Gaines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DanielRigal (talk · contribs)
• Lisha2037 (talk · contribs)
• Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hello. Riley Gaines is contentious topics page as she has spoken out about the trans women in sports debate. There are editors who have used biased sources and misleading words throughout the article have been edited. However, one user keeps reverting my one edit specifically, where a group she has worked with constantly labelled anti-trans when in fact there is no proper source to describe them as transphobic. Their website and secondary sources about them would characterize them as a pro-woman advocacy group or a political entity with diverse investments in the debate. Anti-trans is an opinion label.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Riley Gaines#Impact_Section [2]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe this article is ideologically biased as has some problematic sourcing. As it’s part of a contentious articles debate, editors have used this page to express their opinions on the matter. There is a repetitive use of the words anti-trans to refer to groups that are not transphobic. Plus, it looks like editors will only keep content if it’s about how Riley is advocating for the exclusion of trans women in sports and any criticism related to it but not the support, so it’s not balanced.

Summary of dispute by DanielRigal

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

Lisha2037 is edit warring and editing tendentiously on Riley Gaines. She has already been warned for an unjustified personal attack in an edit summary (diff) and is now venue shopping by bringing it here after nobody has agreed with her on Talk:Riley Gaines. She is trying to remove reliably referenced content and to insert improperly referenced content in furtherance of her own POV. (A POV she makes quite clear in that edit summary!) Specifically, she seems to misunderstand that it is not necessary for a group to admit to a label for us to apply that label if it is reliably sourced. The sourcing for "anti-trans" was perfectly adequate before and I have since improved it with an additional source. Clearly she is aware of WP:TENDENTIOUS, as she brought it up herself here. Without assuming bad faith, I do think she is too invested in one view of this topic to be able to edit constructively. (The fact that she refers to Gaines by forename above might be indicative.) I'd like to propose that she be topic banned from Riley Gaines with an understanding that this could be expanded into a broader topic ban, covering all GENSEX articles, later, if she takes a similar approach elsewhere. That seems like an appropriately minor sanction which would not prevent her from editing in other areas provided she does so constructively, as she has done on other topics in the past and, I hope, will do so again.
(Please note that I was not notified of this report. I only found it because I checked Lisha2037's contribution history.) --DanielRigal (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Please note Lisha2037 removed the warning thread I linked to above in this diff after I had linked it here. I am not sure whether that was routine housekeeping or an attempt to hide material that illuminates her behaviour. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Riley Gaines discussion

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

• Volunteer Note: Please list the other editors involved, and notify all of them. Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

There are additional people involved here. I'll post a neutral notice on Talk:Riley Gaines. DanielRigal (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for opening this up. If you see my edit history of the page, you will see I have added factual information of Gaines advocating for bills banning trans athletes in Ohio. I’m posting information here because I want to contribute to the growth of this website and I’m doing it in good faith. I’m not an editor here but have been for years at newspapers, so even if I don’t have the experience here doesn’t mean I should just get banned when I should be asking the right questions and am still learning to do something I do for free and cause I care about knowledge. No where in the Independent Women's Forum Wikipedia article are they listed as anti-trans, and the articles the user posed for citation are opinion pieces. The label anti-trans connotantes transphobic behaviour, which the group has not officially advocated for on their website. It is common editorial standard to rather be safe than sorry. It is more reflective of a balanced article to not have a controversial label in front of a groups name that’s disputed than to have it. Lisha2037 (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that this is relevant here but I was surprised to see that it was not mentioned there. I have opened a discussion about it here, proposing that it be added. The key point is that we have multiple Reliable Sources explicitly describing them as "anti-trans" and detailing their anti-trans activities. Everything else is noise. DanielRigal (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to be added as a party. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Riley Gaines)

I am ready to conduct moderated discussion, since three editors are ready to take part in discussion. Please read DRN Rule D, which is the usual ruleset when a contentious topic is the subject. By taking part in this moderated discussion, you are acknowledging that the topic is contentious because it involves gender and sexuality and American politics. Be civil and concise. Overly long answers are not always useful, even if they make the poster feel better. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Do not reply to the posts of other editors. In moderated discussion, the moderator represents the community, and parties should address their posts to the moderator (me) and the community.

The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article, Riley Gaines. I will ask each editor to state, concisely, what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or what they want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Riley Gaines)

I think this will be simplest as a bulleted list:

• I oppose the addition of the content added here, and later removed by RoxySaunders citing WP:Puffery, because it is improperly referenced using YouTube videos and a primary source. I also see it as promotional in the way that it boasts about the views that the YouTube videos received as if that indicated notability. I also oppose the way in which that edit swaps out an independent, journalistic source for a transcript of Gaines' testimony.
• I am neutral on the addition of a mention of Gaines' involvement with the Leadership Institute provided it is neutrally worded and can be Reliably referenced, i.e not only to Gaines or the Institute itself. I am also neutral on the use of the transcript as an additional source.
• I oppose the removal of the description of IWV as "anti-trans" here, as that has been the status-quo text for at least a few months (I didn't look further back than that) and it is very well supported, now by multiple Reliable Sources.
• I mildly oppose the removal of the section heading "Transgender women in sports" here as I think that is a good, neutral description of the content in that section. I don't think that it is a huge deal but I do feel that the article would be slightly less informative without it.

In each case I am content with the status quo version. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Riley Gaines)

So far, one editor has made a statement that answered my question about what they want to change in the article. DRN Rule D says that each editor is expected to reply to the moderator at least every 48 hours. If an editor is planning to take a wikibreak of more than 48 hours, please let me know and I may tweak the rules. It has been 48 hours since I asked the editors what they want to change (or leave the same). If you have any questions, you may ask them. If you have any comments about article content, they are welcome, but discuss content, not contributors. The filing editor has not replied to my opening question. If I don't see answers that identify an article content issue to be resolved with 24 48 more hours, I will close this case as abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Firefangledfeathers points out that Rule D does not have a 48-hour rule. It will be revised shortly. So I will allow another 24 hours, for 48 hours, for replies. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Riley Gaines)

I am open to changes to the article, but I am not looking for any in particular. I was waiting on the filer to see how to respond. For the record, Robert, it doesn't appear that Rule D has a 48-hour response requirement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)