Eurovision Wiki: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 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 enter text that has been generated by a large language model or other artificial intelligence. All statements in dispute resolution must be in your own words. 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
Zack Polanski	Closed	Greenpark79 (t)	15 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	13 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	13 days, 23 hours
John Gielgud	Closed	Spectritus (t)	4 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 16 hours
Graham Platner	New	EasternShah (t)	3 days, 17 hours	None	n/a	Generalrelative (t)	3 days, 5 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.

Current disputes

Zack Polanski

– 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. Filed by Greenpark79 on 14:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Zack Polanski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Greenpark79 (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) Bejakyo (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) Pretzel Quetzal (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) GearsDatapack (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) Dispute overview I want to add an Zack Polanski's appearance on the podcast show the Rest is Politics and the media coverage which followed. Everytime I do it's completey deleted or removed. It was first as it was undue weight, I then provided external coverage to the appearance. It was then removed for being too detailed included the coverage in response to the appearance. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zack_Polanski How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like there to be a mediation about the edit and consensus reached. In addition to the edit remaining on the article page without it being removed constantly. I don't wish to do further work in terms of providing citations. Summary of dispute by Greenpark79; Bejakyo; Pretzel Quetzal; GearsDatapack Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Zack Polanski 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 editors on their user talk pages. Notice on the user talk page is required with any noticeboard filings. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC) 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.

John Gielgud

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Spectritus on 11:03, 18 March 2026 (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 John Gielgud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Spectritus (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) SchroCat (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) Halbared (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) Tim riley (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) Cinemaniac86 (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) The One I Left (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) Omnis Scientia (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs) Dispute overview Apparently, a few years ago, there was a consensus to not add an infobox. In 2024, this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AJohn_Gielgud%2FArchive_1#Infobox_%28yes%2C_yet_again%29, seems to show that the consensus changed but for some reason nothing has happened since. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I personally think that the fact such a thing is debated is ridiculous. I hope that a definitive solution can be found here. Summary of dispute by ShroCat Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. sorry, but you haven't discussed it. You asked a question a little earlier today that no-one has answered. That's not a discussion. The nub is that you want an IB on the page, but you haven't said so in the discussion and you haven't outlined the reasons why. I have a sinking feeling when reading "the fact such a thing is debated is ridiculous", as it hardly shows a mind that is open to the viewpoints of others - not that you have so far asked any one why they may have an issue. DR is supposed to be for when something has already been discussed: why has this step been missed out entirely? - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC) @SchroCat It was discussed multiple times long before my involvement. And the latest discussion (from 2023–2024) seems to show that consensus changed. And I am open to other people's views. I was just giving my opinion on the matter. Spectritus (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC) Except you haven't given an opinion. You have written "Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AJohn_Gielgud%2FArchive_1#Infobox_%28yes%2C_yet_again%29 the consensus seems to have changed but for some reason nothing happened since". That's all. As I've said above, you haven't said what you want or why. Relying on a dead thread from a few years that was never actioned isn't enough. You need to say what you want and why - talk pages are for discussions, and you haven't given anyone anything tangible to discuss. - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Halbared Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Tim riley The Wikipedia policy at MOS:INFOBOXUSE is that IBs are neither required nor prohibited. Whether to include one and which parameters to use is decided by consensus, and there has so far, despite the heavy pressure from IB absolutists, been no such consensus. I think those contributing to the discussion should declare honestly whether they think that every article should have one. For my own part I use IBs where helpful – I have written one article with five IBs in my time – but they are not helpful to the reader in such articles as this. Tim riley talk 17:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC) @Tim riley In this article, an infobox would be helpful to easily where he was born and died, his years active, his partner (s), etc. Spectritus (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Cinemaniac86 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by The One I Left Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Omnis Scentia Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. John Gielgud 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.

Graham Platner

– New discussion.

Filed by EasternShah on 17:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Graham Platner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• EasternShah (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs)
• GorillaWarfare (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs)
• Generalrelative (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs)

Dispute overview

EasternShah added verifiable information about Platner's service in Iraq using a source that was already in the article. EasternShah was reverted and told to find consensus. Their attempts to find consensus have been fruitless, so they think a wider participation would be helpful.

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please opine on whether the Abu Ghraib details should be included, and if so, in what form.

Summary of dispute by GorillaWarfare

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

Platner's service in Iraq is already described in his biographical article; EasternShah has been pushing to include Platner's presence at the Abu Ghraib prison specifically. EasternShah's first stated reason to include it was that Abu Ghraib was quite a significant location in the Iraq War. I pointed out that "Abu Ghraib was quite a significant location in the Iraq War" because of the human rights abuses. If Platner was uninvolved in them, why is his presence there noteworthy? They then argued it should be included because:

I think it should be included because Abu Ghraib was a place were horrible atrocities took place, and many people do bad things because of peer pressure. Many bad incidents have happened because of peer pressure, especially in the context of the American invasion of Iraq, such as the Mahmudiyah rape and killings. However, Platner was responsible enough in that moment, surrounded by such grave ills, not to take part in any of those things. What an upstanding citizen, and someone perfect to be senator! That's why I think it should be included.

This is a poor argument for inclusion and smacks of POV-pushing.

In my view, Platner's presence at the prison is not widely described in RS and seems to have been a fairly minor feature in his military career. In order to mention it in the article, explain to readers why the Abu Ghraib prison is noteworthy, and then explain that Platner was not involved in the human rights abuses for which it's known, I think we'd end up giving a lot of weight to a fairly insignificant detail. My feeling is it's not worth including unless reliable sources begin covering it in greater depth. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Generalrelative

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

I'm not sure I have much to add to what GorillaWarfare has stated above, other than to concur, and to state that EasternShah's statement below is misleading on a couple of points.

1) Originally... Before this revert, GW and I had already made it clear on the talk page that if this material is to be included it needs to be rephrased to clearly indicate that Platner had nothing to do with the human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib and a minimal argument for relevance / due weight needs to be made. Despite numerous requests, ES has been unable to provide such an argument. While this conversation was ongoing, ES proceeded to edit war a long string of provocative comments back into the BLP lead, including the Abu Ghraib reference. It was only then that I reverted the entirety of the additions with the edit summary Rolling back contested material. Please refer to WP:BLPRESTORE.

2) The argument that Platner has not received that much publicity is demonstrably and wildly false. GW has already pointed ES to the article's 78 sources. The fact remains that very few of these sources even mention that Platner was once present at Abu Ghraib, so it seems undue for us to do so.

Generalrelative (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Additional comments by EasternShah

Originally, Generalrelative removed the content citing WP:BLPRESTORE, which states When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. The Abu Ghraib been covered in a reliable source, it doesn't damage the neutrality of the article, and there aren't other reasons like article size to exclude the fact from the article. The WP:UNDUE claims are very minor in my view. Platner has not received that much publicity, as he hasn't even been elected to senate yet. The second argument that was quoted above was to demonstrate that a reader could take a favorable or negative view of content, which doesn't automatically make it negative. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 00:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Graham Platner discussion

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