Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

    Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

    This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

    Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
    Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?

    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.

    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
    Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar Failed Southasianhistorian8 (t) 18 days, 22 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 16 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 16 hours
    Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov In Progress Trumpetrep (t) 8 days, 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 17 hours
    Eastern Tennessee seismic zone Closed Mccunicano (t) 2 days, 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 19 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 19 hours
    Breyers New Zefr (t) 2 days, 1 hours None n/a Graywalls (t) 26 minutes

    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 16:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Current disputes

    edit

    Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar

    edit
      – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
    Closed discussion

    Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

    edit
      – Discussion in progress.

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    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?

    Talk:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov User_talk:Ian_Rose#Rimsky_Infobox User_talk:SchroCat#Rimsky_Infobox


    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    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.

    Summary of dispute by SchroCat

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

    Summary of dispute by Antniomanso

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

    Summary of dispute by NipponGinko

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

    Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria

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

    Summary of dispute by Gerda Arendt

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

    Summary of dispute by Ian Rose

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

    Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov discussion

    edit
    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.
    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.
    If Request for Comments is the preferred method of resolving an Infobox dispute, should that header language be updated? Trumpetrep (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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]
    I defer to your judgment about the best way to proceed. No one has weighed in here aside from you.Trumpetrep (talk) 22:56, 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)

    edit

    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.

    Are there any other content issues? Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Zeroth statements by editors (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov)

    edit

    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.

    If the project in question is WikiProject Composers, it does seem that there is a "project-wide consensus" about infoboxes that is outlined here. Some composer articles also have a hidden text admonition not to add an infobox without consensus: "Before adding an infobox, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and seek consensus on this article's talk page."Trumpetrep (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nikolai Andreyevich Rimsky-Korsakov
     
    Portrait of Rimsky-Korsakov in 1898 by Valentin Serov (detail)
    Born(1844-03-18)March 18, 1844
    DiedJune 21, 1908(1908-06-21) (aged 64)
    Cause of deathMyocardial infarction
    Resting placeTikhvin Cemetery
    NationalityRussian Empire
    Alma materNaval Cadet Corps, Saint Petersburg
    EraRomantic
    EmployerSaint Petersburg Conservatory
    Known forcomposer, maestro, musicologist, autobiographer, music professor, music theorist, university professor, military officer, librettist
    Notable workScheherazade
    Symphony No. 1
    The Golden Cockerel
    SpouseNadezhda Rimskaya-Korsakova
    ChildrenAndrey Rimsky-Korsakov
    Mikhail Nikolaevich Rimskiy-Korsakov
    Vladimir Rimsky-Korsakov
    Parents
    • Andrey Petrovich Rimskiy-Korsakov (father)
    • Sofia Vasilievna Skaryatina (mother)
    RelativesVoin Rimsky-Korsakov (brother)
    Signature
     


    First statement by volunteer (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov)

    edit

    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?

    Are there any other content issues? Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    First statements by editors (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov)

    edit

    Eastern Tennessee seismic zone

    edit
    Closed discussion

    Breyers

    edit
      – New discussion.

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    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?

    Summary of dispute by Graywalls

    edit

    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 here Graywalls (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by NutmegCoffeeTea

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

    Summary of dispute by Axad12

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

    Summary of dispute by CNMall41

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

    Breyers discussion

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