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.
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.
The dispute must have beenrecently 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.
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).
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.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Several editors believe that Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov's article should not have an infobox. Several editors believe it should.
There has been a discussion where the consensus was narrowly in favor of an infobox. All attempts to restore the infobox to the article have been reverted, and attempts to engage infobox opponents in discussion have been met with silence.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Well-meaning editors are trying to engage in a discussion about the issue. Several editors are not reciprocating and revert any attempts to install an infobox. The hope is that the Dispute Resolution process can engage reticent editors in an open discussion in order to create a consensus.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Notes - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages.
The usual way to determine whether an article should have an infobox is a Request for Comments, and there does not appear to have been an RFC for that purpose. If a dispute is opened here, it will probably result in an RFC asking whether there should be an infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining that. At the top of the article's talk page, there is a notice that says, "Seek dispute resolution if needed". When we hit an impasse, I clicked the Dispute Resolution link and followed the instructions.
User:Trumpetrep - I have reviewed the header language, and there is no need to change it. It says to seek dispute resolution if needed. That page lists four ways of resolving content disputes and four ways of resolving conduct disputes. One of the ways of resolving content disputes is Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is where we are, and another is Request for Comments. You followed the instructions, and came here, and we sometimes either advise the editor to use an RFC or set up the RFC. The header instructions are correct. You followed the instructions. Do you want me to set up the RFC for you? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Trumpetrep - The reason that no one else has responded is that you forgot to notify the other users, and I didn't tell you to notify them, because I didn't think that moderated discussion would be as useful as an RFC. I have prepared more than a hundred RFCs, so I would suggest that you ask me to prepare the RFC, but that is your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the instructions I was given when I asked for the Dispute Resolution. I was told to notify the editors, and I did so immediately at the discussion page in question. That seemed like the correct way to do it. I apologize that I misunderstood the process.
When I saw your Volunteer Notes, I immediately notified all of the editors on their Talk pages. I am very grateful for your explanations. I would like to see if there is any progress with the current circumstances before requesting comments. Trumpetrep (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by volunteer (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov)
I am ready to conduct moderated discussion if that is appropriate. My opinion is that the question of whether there should be an infobox for Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov should be resolved by an RFC. Disputes over whether articles on classical music and musicians should have infoboxes have been common, and there does not seem to be a project-wide consensus on the issue, so it is best to rely on consensus for each article determined by RFC. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom decision on infobox disputes. If you wish to engage in discussion, please first state that you agree to the rules, and that you understand that infoboxes are a contentious topic.
The article currently does not have an infobox. In order for the RFC to be informative, a draft infobox should be provided for inclusion in the RFC. So if you want an RFC on an infobox, please provide a draft infobox for inclusion in the RFC.
Thanks again for your help with this process and for your willingness to conduct a moderated discussion. I hope I'm responding in the correct format. The infobox that was created on October 13th appears in a slightly amended form below. I streamlined the image coding and added a link to Rimsky-Korsakov's wife.
I have created the draft RFC for review at talk:Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov/RFC_on_Infobox . I have reviewed the guideline on infoboxes for composers, and I would characterize it as a consensus that there is no consensus:
The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.
That is what I had remembered. So this RFC will be used to arrive at consensus.
Are there any comments on the draft RFC before I move it to the article talk page and it becomes an active RFC?
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.
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.
Breyers is a 158 year old ice cream and frozen dessert brand owned since 1993 by Unilever. It has a fairly simple story of its American history, purchase by Unilever, products, and place among other high-performance brands. The current version includes each sentence with a verifiable, reliable source. One persistent disputant #1 has repeatedly diminished the content, such as in this version, with no constructive edits. Another disputant #2 earlier inserted this version, attempting to highlight "antifreeze" as a Breyers ingredient, while wiping out constructive sourced edits. Disputant #3 also reverted here to eliminate improvements. A fourth good-faith editor provided additional edits here. A main issue of disputants #1-3 is over a GRAS ingredient used in Breyers products 11 years ago, but not since, to make the antifreeze smear. With input in recent days, two admins on the talk page have essentially ended that claim as irrelevant to current ingredients, WP:UNDUE and having no WP:RS sources. It seems likely that disputants #1-3 will further oppose building a verifiable, accurate, sourced article. As recently as a month ago, disputant #1 reverted improvements to return to this outdated, skeletal version.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Breyers#Article_status,_part_3 - which is the latest attempt to discuss and build a better article. The talk page has been extensively organized to invite constructive input, but has been in dispute over the past 3 months, with disputants #1-3 actively participating to argue against building the article.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
The Breyers article has 54 watchers, with 11 having visited in the past month. I have repeatedly attempted to provide objective, sourced statements to give the basic information, but appear to be the only editor doing so. The disputants will argue that my edits were "cultivated" by Unilever consultants who made reasonable edit requests, to which I responded in the History section. I have no COI. Is the current version objectively stated and verifiable to deter further disputes and reverts?
It has been difficult working with Zefr as I feel they're pushy and consensus is not being respected and they don't seem to be adhering to WP:AGF as they had been casting aspersions that some editors are here to "slander" or "disparage" that is up against the line of WP:NLT.
"disparaging" which triggered a hinting of legal actions. They said Statements of facts supported by reliable sources do not need talk page consensus., so this seems like they have no intentions of respecting consensus. as said in hereGraywalls (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I had unsubscribed from the relevant threads over a fortnight ago because the OP here was clearly being very difficult and simply would not accept that consensus was against them (on a variety of issues). Having read through the developments since I unsubscribed I'm disappointed (but unsurprised) to see that that continues to be the case. I can only interpret this referral to dispute resolution as the desperate last throw of the dice of someone who should have accepted that the consensus was against them and walked away a long time ago.
Also, I do very much believe that the user was canvassed/cultivated to deal with the relevant COI edit requests in a way which undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. Also that some of the allegations that the user made during the course of those threads were massively inaccurate and ill-advised. Axad12 (talk)
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I was gone for about a week so forgive the late response. I am not sure what to add here since this is my first DRN. I will say that the discussion has been contentious and if there is a specific question about specific content I will be glad to opine. Otherwise, I am not really interested in the back and forth .--CNMall41 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to try to conduct moderated discussion if at least two editors agree to moderated discussion. Only one other editor besides the filing editor has replied, but other editors are still welcome to join the discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you agree to moderated discussion.
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Each editor should state concisely what changes they want to make to the article (in which section and paragraph) that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
I am not familiar with procedural flow so my apologies if this is not the right way to follow up. I sent reminders to others, and I would like to give it a few more days to see if they'd comment. Graywalls (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DRN Rule A is a good outline to which I encourage and agree for the moderated discussion.
The Breyers brand story and article are relatively easy to research and describe, and it will likely not change much over time because it is managed by Unilever who intends to sell it and all the Unilever ice cream brands in 2025.
From my view as an objective Wikipedia editor mainly on science topics, the two main disputed issues are
1) using best-available recent sources to update which was an outdated skeletal version containing misinformation when I began editing in August 2024. The version discussed in this talk page topic is fair, balanced, sourced, and factual, with the one exception mentioned - propylene glycol is an irrelevant issue to discuss among the many intentional ingredients for frozen dairy desserts (no source to indicate it ever applied to original ice cream products);
and 2) the persistent reintroduction (by disputants #1-3) of the slur term "antifreeze" as a relevant ingredient in Breyers products. Propylene glycol - a common, safe, approved food ingredient not used in Breyers products since 2013, so a question of why it is such a sensitive, persistently-disputed issue raises concern over what motivations are behind the months-long dispute, including just yesterday here.
The consensus was clearly against you there, and will continue to be against you here.
You cannot just present argument after argument in the discussion at the talkpage (attracting only disagreement and no support) and then argue here that there have been no replies. That is what tends to happen when editors remorselessly try to wear down everyone else's resistance and attention.
To then bring the issues here is frankly an abuse of process in relation to discussions where there was a clear consensus against you weeks ago.
I suggest you review WP:CON, which contains tendentious editing, WP:TE - the correct description for the smearing of the article by you, Graywalls, and NutmegCoffeeTea with irrelevant content: "Tendentious editing is a pattern of editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially neutral point of view." The 3 of you are skewed/non-neutral to attempt describing a consumer brand with a slanderous term, while not offering a single constructive edit with recent verifiable sources over the last 6 months of article history. Zefr (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies but I have no time for your continual allegations and wikilawyering. That there was a clear consensus against you at the talk page is self-evident, and admins do not get some kind of supervote.
Frankly, the nature of the allegations you made at the talk page were a clear breach of WP:AGF and the post above doubles down on that kind of rhetoric. All that I have personally done on that article is reinstate (some time ago now) the previous established version because there was no consensus for the changes you had made. Accusing me of slander, smearing, tendentious editing and spambait is quite laughable (and is on top of your previous allegations of tagteaming, being canvassed to attend when I was already in the conversation, etc, etc.).
If your only interest here is in continuing to attack those who disagree with you, what is the point of this exercise? That kind of behaviour is never the way to "win" an argument, and is about as far from dispute resolution as can be imagined.
Also, why are you selectively canvassing previous talkpage contributors in your post above? What about also pinging the full list of contributors who disagreed with you but who weren't invited to this discussion? Axad12 (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You chose to be involved in resolving the dispute. You could have remained silent, but here you are attacking behavior and not observing the first rule of DRN: This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Zefr (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, I'm perfectly allowed to defend myself from nonsense allegations - here or anywhere else on Wikipedia.
And in relation to your canvassing above, here is evidence of the additional editors who disagreed with the removal of reference to Propylene Glycol. I'm not going to mention them as I don't canvass, but here are the relevant diffs to prove that the editors exist:
The editor who turned down (here [1]) the original COI edit request to remove mention of Propylene Glycol from the article back in August. The same editor reiterated their position here [2] on 9 Nov. (The initial opposition clearly demonstrates that there was no consensus for removal when the COI editor repeated their request and canvassed their cultivated editor (Zefr) to approve it.)
The editor who disagreed [3] with Zefr’s subsequent removal of mention of Propylene Glycol
The editor who stated [4] that Zefr’s proposal amounted to promotion.
Add those voices to the 3 which you choose to acknowledge and there is the evidence to demonstrate that there has always been a clear consensus against you. Axad12 (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reasonable support for the sources applying to propylene glycol or the "antifreeze" slur, shown partly by this RSN discussion.
DRN is intended to work on content and source. The current article has a statement challenged for its relevance in this discussion:"A 2013 book indicated that some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contained propylene glycol as an additive to make ice cream easier to scoop." Why is this relevant per WP:REL and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS?
Given your rather transparent moving of the goalposts I assume that you accept that your earlier post was canvassing and an attempt to distort consensus here?
Also I'd suggest you withdraw the various groundless allegations that you've made against me above, for simply reverting an edit for which there was no talkpage consensus.
I'm more than happy to participate in dispute resolution, but not in an environment which you have soured with your continued personal attacks and recent canvassing post. Axad12 (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the idea that your point of view is borne out by the two discussions that you link to seems quite unfounded. As I have stated, there has always been a consensus for inclusion of the Propylene Glycol mention. To be honest it is pushing the envelope to even suggest that there is a dispute here that needs resolving.
For the last month you have been bludgeoning to keep the discussion alive (way beyond its natural lifespan) in the optimistic hope that you'd find enough people to agree with you to overturn the obvious consensus. When that didn't happen you brought the 'dispute' here, presumably in the hope of finding support which you didn't get at the talkpage or at RSN.
The whole thing is an abuse of process.
It's very disappointing that this is being done in the name of implementing a COI edit request which was a repeat of one which was quite rightly turned down back in August by another editor. The COI editor then repeatedly canvassed you to respond to various subsequent trivial edit requests and then repeated the one that had been declined and asked you to implement it. You should have been aware that there was no consensus in favour of it because it had already been turned down. Ever since then it has just been continual argumentation prompted by one individual who discounts everyone else's opinion. Axad12 (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have strayed from the purpose here to resolve a dispute over content and sources. As it stands today, every sentence in the Breyers article (except for the propylene glycol issue) is verified by a reliable source. None of the disputants #1-3 has made new constructive edits, added new reliable sources or challenged the facts and existing sources.
WP:CON occurs "through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Such policies include WP:V and underlying WP:RS. Without verifiability and a reliable source, a sense of consensus among a couple of users wanting to emphasize propylene glycol doesn't hold.
The issue about propylene glycol as a minor modification additive (one among 14 ingredients in a single dessert) in 2013 doesn't pass WP:V. It fails because a) it is a questionable source (an unscientific book about "banishing belly fat"), b) it is self-published by an author with no expertise in food manufacturing, c) it is an old source outdated by 12 years with no relevance to current product ingredients or food manufacturing, d) it is out of context about an article describing a brand, Breyers, and e) it has no relevance to the overall article and is too minor to mention, WP:UNDUE.
To help the process, please address these policy concerns as they apply to the 2013 propylene glycol issue. It would also be useful to offer text and a source that would re-address propylene glycol if applicable and relevant to a Breyers product in 2024. Zefr (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to believe that there are many worrying elements to the history of this dispute, and in the way it was brought here, and (contrary to your suggestion above) it is entirely valid to air those concerns here. Namely: (a) whether there is an actual dispute here and not just one individual continually trying to push a POV contrary to talkpage consensus, (b) obvious canvassing by you, and (c) the COI element to the talk page history.
You are continuing to try to plough on with your own narrative and disregard the concerns of other users, which has been a regrettable element to these discussions from early November onwards.
Furthermore I'm not sure how you square accusing me of diverging from a content discussion with the fact that you made a number of entirely uncalled for and intemperate personal attacks against myself and others earlier in this thread (including the very serious accusation of slander, which you must surely retract).
As for the other points that you raise above, those have all been dealt with by other users in the relevant talk page discussion (quite possibly on multiple occasions). Axad12 (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of words, no focus. You're confused about canvassing - I haven't asked anyone to come here, but rather mentioned talk page discussants. To assist the moderator and clarify what is disputed: 1) what in the existing article would you change and why? 2) how would you word a revision about propylene glycol (relevant link for use as a food ingredient), and what current reliable source would apply? Zefr (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread DRN Rule A. Your attention is called to sections A.3, Comment on content, not contributors, and A.4, no back-and-forth discussion. Most of the previous discussion has been collapsed. We will start over. Please state whether you agree to DRN Rule A. Then state what article content you want to change, or what article content you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. If you can't state what you want in terms of changes to the article, maybe you haven't been focusing on article content. If you want to talk about editor conduct, you should first read the boomerang essay, and may then report the conduct issue at WP:ANI, but we should be trying to improve the encyclopedia, and so should be trying to concentrate on article content. The objective of this noticeboard is to resolve disputes by focusing on content, which often permits the conduct issue to subside.
Are there any questions? Please state them below. If there are no questions, please either agree to DRN Rule A and state what the content issues are, or state that you do not agree to the rules, or say nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question.
I am unfamiliar with this noticeboard and I wish to ask a purely procedural question which does not relate to editor conduct. I had previously read the notes at the top of the noticeboard but I did not see the point addressed.
In the dispute under discussion here there has already been a month's worth of talk page discussion where the OP is clearly in a small minority. There has never been anything even vaguely close to a consensus in favour of what they are trying to implement and there is a strong consensus (consisting of at least 6 editors) against implementation. Therefore the pre-existing version of the relevant part of the article continues to prevail. To the best of my knowledge that overall state of affairs is entirely standard when it comes to the resolution of talk page content discussions and is entirely in accordance with the relevant policies and guidelines.
Where a single editor has found little support for their position at the talk page, and where the discussion has effectively run its course, having had input from a good range of contributors and a clear consensus has emerged (albeit spread rather widely across a month's worth of comments), I am very surprised that an editor has recourse to this process, which I assume is intended for the resolution of issues which remain meaningfully in dispute (following adequate talk page discussion). As far as I can see that is very much not the case here.
The relevant talk page discussions are this thread [5] and then all of the material from this thread [6] downwards to the foot of the talk page. Any objective reading of the relevant material will support the version of events I have presented above.
I would thus be grateful for some chapter and verse on whether this referral to dispute resolution is in accordance with the intended purpose of this noticeboard.
I'm perfectly open to the idea that I may be mistaken in my feelings on this question but hopefully it will be accepted that it is a good faith question with relevance to the overall discussion. Axad12 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Robert, a response to the above post would be appreciated. You've asked twice now if there are any questions about the process - and the post above does present such a question. I'd be very grateful for your input here - if only because nobody seems to be prepared to engage with the OP's point of view until the issue of the validity of this overall thread is settled. Axad12 (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) the existing article is concise and factual, with each statement verified by a reliable source (except for propylene glycol). For the Consumer concerns and feedback section, the first two sentences should be moved to History, and the last two sentences should be deleted. Otherwise, the article is a factual, sourced stub just as it should be, and should not be changed unless sources within the last 5 years are applied as relevant.
Breyer's made "natural" a selling point for a long time and the 2013 reformulation is a big deal. The fact propylene glycol is contained was covered in published sources should not be ignored and per rough talk page consensus, some inclusion is absolutely warranted. The extensive boastful fluff though, should be trimmed. Graywalls (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to answer what Axad12 describes as a purely procedural question. Now that they have clarified that they are not asking about conduct, I will try to answer.
It appears that Axad12 is saying that this is a one-against-many content dispute. I am otherwise not entirely sure what the question is. Maybe they are asking whether they are required to take part in this discussion. Participation in DRN is voluntary, regardless of whether there is a rough consensus in one direction or another or not. So they are not required to take part in discussion here, and would not be required to take part, regardless of any previous proceedings. Perhaps they are asking what will happen if they do not participate in DRN. In that case, I will close this case as declined. Then discussion should resume on the article talk page, and normal editing can resume. Edit-warring is not permitted. See the Wikipedia policy on consensus.
Sometimes a question is easier to answer when it is not accompanied by a long discussion.
Was that the question that was being asked, or was something else being asked? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, the question was whether the OP has recourse to this process when lengthy multi-user talk page discussion has already established that there is a strong consensus contrary to what they are trying to implement.
My concern was that it seemed unfair to expect users to rehash the same discussion here, but this was based on the idea that if no one could be bothered to do so the OP would win the day (unopposed).
However, you appear to be saying that if no one engages further then the OP's request will be declined, which would seem to me to be an entirely correct and appropriate outcome.
Thank you for your clarification. Hopefully I have understood you correctly, if not please set me straight.
The absence of discussion and refusal to collaborate here on the disputed content can be interpreted as the disputants having no argument to justify mentioning propylene glycol. There is no consensus when there is no verifiable reliable source for why propylene glycol is sufficiently an important ingredient that it should be mentioned for manufacturing frozen desserts (it was never applied for making ice cream).
The article has no such verifiable, reliable source supporting any concerns about the widely-accepted safety of propylene glycol in frozen dessert manufacturing.
1) the existing article is concise and factual, with each sentence verified by a reliable source (except for propylene glycol). No discussants disputed or collaborated on this point to improve the article. Accordingly, it is presumed acceptable as is.
2) the only applicable information about propylene glycol is this: it is and has been since 1982 a common, safe, regulated GRAS food ingredient approved in many countries, with no safety concerns or relevance to Breyers products in 2013 or now. It is only a formulation ingredient for texture control, and need not be mentioned as having relevance to the overall article on the brand. No discussants disputed or collaborated on this point to make the article clearer or better sourced.
As noted on the DRN FAQ: Wikipedia only works when editors collaborate to form a consensus. Discussion is as important in the editing process as editing itself. While participation is not a requirement at DR/N, refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building.
As no other discussants made attempts to collaborate on the above two conclusions, I accept that the discussion can resume on the article talk page, and the existing content and sources apply until further discussion.
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.
1) Disagreement on if WP:SYNTH is occurring in the topline summary sentences. The arguments for including these sentences is that one sentence in the lead is an accurate summary of the article's reception section & follows MOS:INTRO/Wikipedia:Summary style & the second sentence is in a reception section paragraph & follows WP:VG/REC advice for opening sentences. The argument against is that SYNTH is occurring & these summary sentences should not be included.
2) Rewriting a sentence on review bombing to remove context on negative reviews after a November talk page discussion came to consensus.
3) Other more minor disagreements about exact prose.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
An independent review of the prose to ensure it is following policy as it seems the discussion has stalled out & to help us reach a consensus on the main content disagreements. The back and forth has led to the article being under a full lock until the dispute is resolved.
The edits and justifications on the article by BMWF, who appears to have an ardent approach to following certain rules and guidelines, I have found particularly questionable. In my opinion:
1. The aforementioned summaries, in both the lead and body, of points in the reception section do not amount to WP:SYNTH, and reception summaries in leads for countless articles would be removed if it did.
2. Including the Steam player base numbers is not relevant for the lead, at least not in place of the lack of official sales figures, and where the sales section largely consists of theorising how much Dragon Age: Veilguard has sold.
3. Identifying each platform for the game that was given a Metacritic consensus of "generally favorable" is redundant when the consensuses are the same for all the platforms; they should only be identified if there are differing consensuses, or at most should be written as "for all platforms".
4. The invoking of WP:SAID while changing the wording so that a critic of the game "said" instead of "thought" and "referred to" instead of "criticized" I don't find warranted for what was initially written (note there are other instances of the words "thought" and "criticized" still remaining in the section). Similarly, the initial wording of "offensive reviews" I feel is more neutral and less loaded than "abusive reviews".
5. I am less invested in how the review bombing is outlined, though do think some mention should be made on how Steam requires proof that you have played the game first before reviewing it, unlike Metacritic (or vice versa). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
To expand a bit a on the listing, I believe that at this point both @Wikibenboy94 and I agree that there are no WP:SYNTH issues in the topline summary sentences removed by @BMWF in this edit and agree on restoring them which BMWF opposes. I also agree with Wikibenboy94 on points 2-4 that they outlined in their summary of the dispute.
In terms of the review bomb sentence, I think the following compromise version should satisfy the request for clarity on Steam users (bold is the text added by BMWF) while restoring context (underlined) that was in the November consensus on this issue: Veilguard was also subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative, the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam, which requires users to play the game before leaving a review, have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove offensive reviews. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)
I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two participants want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and state that you agree to the rules (if you want moderated discussion). The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick clarity question on DRN Rule A - my assumption is that the rule is to not edit war over the disputed content but updates/improvements in other sections are fine. This question occurred to me after the fact (I corrected a template in the awards table which is unrelated to the dispute but was a mistake I made). Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally prefer to have the parties avoid editing any part of the article, at least until all of the parties agree on what the area of dispute is. Since the other editors have not yet stated what they think the issues are, I am not relaxing the rule against editing the article, except with regard to the change that User:Sariel Xilo is asking about, that was already made. In that case, the principle of no harm, no foul applies to the change that has already been made. Leave the change in.
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to DRN Rule A. As outlined above, I would like to restore the topline summary sentences in the lead & reception section (ie. the sentences removed in the lead in this edit & in the reception in this edit), restore other word changes as outlined by Wikibenboy94's in their points 2-4, & I would like use the above proposed compromise version of the review bomb prose. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed for now. It is difficult to conduct moderated discussion between a registered user and one human whose IP address is shifting. The filing editor should resume discussion on the article talk page, being aware that there is one human behind the IP addresses. The statements that are supposedly by two IP addresses were made from one IP address. Did you really think we wouldn't look at the history? The one human should register an account. Then the two editors can discuss, or can request a Third Opinion. The issue appears to be a matter of the criterion for a list of buildings, but that seems to be irrelevant, since any building that is more than 200 m high will also be in a list of buildings that are more than 150 m high. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Do not edit-war. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
IP address 155.69.190.63 claimed that Johor Bahru is the second-highest city in Malaysia for skyscrapers over 200 metres, while most skyscraper-related articles define a skyscraper as 150 meters. Talk page discussions on the arbritrary nature of the 200-metre benchmark are deadlocked.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The discussion being deadlocked, it is hoped that a consensus can be built from more participation by editors, especially from WikiProject Skyscrapers, and others with knowledge on skyscraper definitions.
<I think I have written enough about the main argument in the main talk page, but seems like the complainer (which has been scolded by various admins in ANI threads) still do not understand what is the main point of argument for this issue. The title for the thread is already wrong in the first place, it is not about which city has taller skyline/higher city (which is very subjective from person to person). Instead, what I have argued is the number of 200m+ buildings ONLY, not about which city has taller/more beautiful skyline. And 200m is not even a benchmark, that's your own opinion or prejudice, not mine. Don't force other editors to accept what appears to be your own thoughts. None of the skyscraper pages have explicitly mentioned 150m is the ONE AND ONLY standard, even Dubai uses 180m. I believe the complainer still do not know what is going on there. No one is interested to talk about which city has taller skyline.
Side note to the complainer, I realise that you have arbitrarily put in an extra sentence in Penang's page saying Penang is the so-called second tallest city in Malaysia, even though this discussion has not been resolved. And another editor familiar with skyscrapers have already mentioned that this sentence is actually nebulous. I am going to lodge a new talk page and complaint very soon so that we can discuss about that particular sentence in Penang's page, a very subjective claim and without any substantiated evidences, what does it even mean to be second tallest city in the first place? I am going to create new thread. Please wait for me.
For everyone's attention, the page is List of tallest buildings in George Town, Penang. None of the any city's Wiki skyscraper page has even mentioned about they being the tallest/second tallest city in their nation. Penang is the only page to do so (The complainer has quietly added that extra sentence after this dispute which I am going to create new talk page soon). What does it mean to be the tallest city? As a reader, it really confused me the meaning behind this term. If you look at the page for Tokyo, Shanghai, Taipei, Osaka, Kaohsiung, Jakarta, Surabaya, Melbourne, none of these cities even mentioned about they being the tallest/second/third tallest city in their nation as this is very subjective and nebulous, every person has different views about a tall city or which city has better skyline. Those pages only mentioned the numbers of 150m/200m buildings and the editors leave it to the readers to formtheir opinions on which city has taller/better skyline. It is really weird. And where does the source even come from? A city with 30 blocks of 150m buildings is claimed to be a taller city than another city with 28 blocks of 250m buildings? This is what exactly happening in Penang's page, none of other similar Wiki pages did the same thing and this made the Penang's page content look like an advertisement or promotion. Isn't it very subjective according to different person so who has the right to define which city has taller/better skyline? And especially you added this sentence before dispute resolved?
List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru 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.
people keep attributing Ahmad Lahori as the chief architect of the taj mahal and of many other projects when no such records exist for him beyond things written in a hagiography,
no official records or records by others match (that name others)beyond him having worked at the foundation of the red fort,
yet there's an entire mythology written up about him (much was removed, but more still needs to be edited out)
even the potrait isnt him,
i did some research and put in some effort to write a refutation of his at the talk page using the best possible sources,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ustad_Ahmad_Lahori titled "Myths about ustad ahmad lahori's role as the chief architect of shahjahan"
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
clear out the amateur sources and repeating myths,
alert the reader when its quoting hagiography by his son to let them know the source of the rumors,
let the reader know of mughal tradition and why despite it records dont match the hagiography and let them know who according to tradition was attributed as the supreme architect (see the talk page as i talk about it).
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I think the editor is asking for someone to help support their POV on the article; I'm not sure there is a dispute here. The editor is new. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is a content dispute, but the way to find out whether there is a content dispute is to ask my usual opening question. First, the editors are asked to read DRN Rule D, and to read the ArbCom ruling that India and Pakistan are a contentious topic. Then please answer the usual opening question. The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. If there is a content dispute, please state what part of the article you want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Please also agree that you accept the ground rules, and that you acknowledge that Ustad Ahmad Lahori and the Taj Mahal are a contentious topic because they are about the history of India. If there is a content dispute, we can continue with moderated discussion. If the originator was merely stating a general objective, then normal discussion can continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as not discussed in the proper forum. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. There has been discussion on a user talk page, but that is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page. Sometimes third-party editors may also enter a discussion on the article talk page. There are at least two other editors who have edited the article recently. So continue discussion on the article talk page. Be civil. (At least one editor was uncivil, but one should read the boomerang essay before reporting incivility, and should also be aware that reporting minor incivilities often increases the underlying hostility. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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?
Discussion moved from edit summaries into the user's talk page.
The article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects is one of many on filmmakers who had films/series they were developing that ultimately never got made, or the filmmaker simply left. This is explained in the lead section of the article. @ZanderAlbatraz1145: has been including content on projects in which Guadagnino is still actively involved with. Thus, this does not align with the purpose of the article. Today, I had removed two of Guadagnino's more recent projects, citing that they were still being developed with Guadagnino on two instances. ZanderAlbatraz reverted me, opening with bad faith comments about whether myself or other editors would remember to reinclude them should they become unrealized (this is also ZanderAlbatraz employing assumption in regards to Guadagnino not realizing the project), and then finishing with uncivil remarks such as " Make sense? Doubt you'll understand" and remarking they'd just keep re-adding it, demonstrating disinterest in collaborative or constructive editing. I reverted, reasserting the purpose of the page is "unrealized projects", they proceeded to follow through with their intention to edit war.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I approached the editor on their talk page, see User talk:ZanderAlbatraz1145#Luca Guadagnino. Here they demonstrated a lack of understanding as to what the goal of the article was for, and refused requests for them to revert themselves. This ultimately ended with them saying to "Bite me". ZanderAlbatraz consistently engages in incivility such as this, with @Staraction: leaving them a message prior to my thread about their uncivil comments.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Given this has essentially been a 1 v 1 disagreement, looking either for third party resolution, or to see if the matter should be fielded in a bigger format for more input. Additionally, ZanderAlbatraz in my opinion should be given firmer reprimand about their conduct.
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.
This refers to an academic's personal page - dean of the college of computing at Northeastern. There is on editor who is adding content to that is unsubstantiated and not objective. I've asked this editor to discuss a compromise on the talk page, but they keep trying to talk about it in other spaces which I find inappropriate. This person has found me on another platform and try to start a conversation about it there. Several other editors have also reversed the aspects that are unsubstantiated, so I thought it best to submit through this channel as the compromise I presented was completely ignored. In the latest communication from user No Oath, i was called a biased hack and accused of not "discussing" the issue. However, I feel that I am as I am using the Talk page as we are supposed to.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I think it would be helpful to have an objective third party review. In the talk page, i have asked the editor if there is a common ground that can be reached and offered a potential solution to which I have been told that they will continue to revert back any changes until they (No Oath) are banned. If I am being unreasonable, I am happy to accept that but feel that based on the communication from this editor, there is a personal issue at play that shouldn't play out on this platform.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.