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
Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov	In Progress	Trumpetrep (t)	11 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 days, 20 hours
Breyers	New	Zefr (t)	5 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours	Axad12 (t)	15 hours
Dragon Age: The Veilguard	New	Sariel Xilo (t)	3 days,	None	n/a	Wikibenboy94 (t)	2 days, 1 hours
Johanna Olson-Kennedy	Closed	96.36.47.50 (t)	2 days, 11 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 8 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 8 hours
AIM-174B	New	MWFwiki (t)	1 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours	MWFwiki (t)	51 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 20:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Trumpetrep on 14:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Trumpetrep (talk · contribs)
• SchroCat (talk · contribs)
• Antniomanso (talk · contribs)
• NipponGinko (talk · contribs)
• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
• Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs)
• Ian Rose (talk · contribs)

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

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

Summary of dispute by Antniomanso

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

Summary of dispute by NipponGinko

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

Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria

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

Summary of dispute by Gerda Arendt

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

Summary of dispute by Ian Rose

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

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov discussion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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

Zeroth statements by editors (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov)

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)

Nikolai Andreyevich Rimsky-Korsakov
Portrait of Rimsky-Korsakov in 1898 by Valentin Serov (detail)
Born	(1844-03-18)March 18, 1844 Tikhvin, Tikhvinsky Uyezd, Russian Empire
Died	June 21, 1908(1908-06-21) (aged 64) Luga, Luzhsky Uyezd, Russian Empire
Cause of death	Myocardial infarction
Resting place	Tikhvin Cemetery
Nationality	Russian Empire
Alma mater	Naval Cadet Corps, Saint Petersburg
Era	Romantic
Employer	Saint Petersburg Conservatory
Known for	composer, maestro, musicologist, autobiographer, music professor, music theorist, university professor, military officer, librettist
Notable work	Scheherazade Symphony No. 1 The Golden Cockerel
Spouse	Nadezhda Rimskaya-Korsakova
Children	Andrey Rimsky-Korsakov Mikhail Nikolaevich Rimskiy-Korsakov Vladimir Rimsky-Korsakov
Parents	Andrey Petrovich Rimskiy-Korsakov (father) Sofia Vasilievna Skaryatina (mother)
Relatives	Voin Rimsky-Korsakov (brother)
Signature

First statement by volunteer (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov)

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)

Breyers

– New discussion.

Filed by Zefr on 15:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Zefr (talk · contribs)
• Graywalls (talk · contribs)
• NutmegCoffeeTea (talk · contribs)
• Axad12 (talk · contribs)
• CNMall41 (talk · contribs)

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

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)

Summary of dispute by NutmegCoffeeTea

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

Summary of dispute by Axad12

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)

Summary of dispute by CNMall41

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

Breyers discussion

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

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Breyer's)

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.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

On the Breyers talk page, I have raised discussion using WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and WP:REL about why the propylene glycol ingredient deserves to be mentioned at all, but there have been no replies to advance the discussion. Zefr (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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. WP:CONSENSUS is the way to resolve disputes, not forum shopping. Axad12 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC) You are one of 3 editors who tried to slander and WP:SPAMBAIT the article with the word "antifreeze" as a relevant ingredient. 3 editors out of only 11 who have visited this page in the last month are not a consensus, especially when two admins (Cullen328 and BD2412) dismissed the propylene glycol-antifreeze issue on the talk page. 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) 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) 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) 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) 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? What content and sources do you propose to use? Zefr (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

First statement by possible moderator (Breyer's)

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)

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)

First statements by editors (Breyers)

I agree to DRN Rule A.

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.

2) the discussion about propylene glycol (link for use as a GRAS food ingredient) had no relevance in 2013 and has none now. Accordingly, propylene glycol should not be mentioned in the article. Zefr (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Dragon Age: The Veilguard

– New discussion.

Filed by Sariel Xilo on 20:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Dragon Age: The Veilguard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sariel Xilo (talk · contribs)
• BMWF (talk · contribs)
• Wikibenboy94 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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?

• Current discussion: Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard#Prose
• Previous discussion: Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard#Review bomb context

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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.

Summary of dispute by BMWF

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

Summary of dispute by Wikibenboy94

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)

Dragon Age: The Veilguard discussion

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

Johanna Olson-Kennedy

– 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 96.36.47.50 on 09:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Johanna Olson-Kennedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Usr Trj (talk · contribs) Esqueer (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This WP:BLP article has a controversy section. The controversy is about a scientific study that the author did not publish because she was worried about the interpretation of the findings, according to a NYTimes article. The following passage is what drives the dispute: The study was part of a larger NIH-funded project studying the impact of gender-affirming care on transgender youth. There was also 28 other peer-reviewed studies for the project that were published, many of which were co-authored by Olson-Kennedy and showed positive results from puberty blockers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johanna_Olson-Kennedy#Controversy I claim that this is not part of the controversy (because it is not controversial that other studies were published) and should be removed, while other editors claim it is part of the controversy and should remain. I claim that digging into the results of the studies constitutes original research, as I believe it was done in order to characterize the results as "positive", because this characterization is not part of the NYTimes article, but rather appears to be a personal assessment. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? On Oct 24, I opened a section on the talk page at [7]. The discussion has come at a standstill, there is no response from the other parties and we are still in disagreement over the content. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Clarify if the contentious passage should remain or be removed. Summary of dispute by Usr Trj I believe that it's worth mentioning the results of the other studies since the unpublished study was only one part of a larger project and many of the other studies that were apart of this project were published and showed different results than the one that wasn't published. A big part of the controversy was the fact that the unpublished study showed negative results and was believed to be purposely suppressed because of that. So I think it's worth mentioning that other studies in this project which were published did not show negative results like the unpublished one. This is confirmed in the New York Times article which is currently the main source for the section. I also agree with User:Esqueer that removing the passage will create the impression that no research from this specific project was published at all. Since controversy centers on the fact that a study wasn't published, it should be worth mentioning that other studies in the project it is apart of were published as this is important context. Usr Trj (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Esqueer NOTE the summary was written by me; I do not understand if this space is for User:Esqueer or for me to fill out. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Claims that removing the passage will create the impression that no research was published at all. Claims the material is properly sourced. Johanna Olson-Kennedy discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. References 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.

AIM-174B

– New discussion.

Filed by MWFwiki on 00:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• AIM-174B (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MWFwiki (talk · contribs)
• Asukite (talk · contribs)
• ModernDayTrilobite (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

"AIM-174 air-to-air missile" was moved without discussion to "AIM-174B." Consensus was reached RE: the removal of "air-to-air missile," but no consensus was reached regarding the addition or removal of the "B." After a no-consensus RM close (which should have brought us back to the original title, sans agreed-upon unneeded additional disambiguator), I requested the discussion be re-opened, per policy. (TO BE CLEAR; I should have, at this time, requested immediate reversion. However, I did not want to be impolite or pushy) The original closer (who found for "no consensus") was concerned they had become "too involved" in the process and requested another closer. Said closer immediately found consensus for "AIM-174B." I pressed-on to a MRV, where an additional "no consensus" (to overturn) finding was issued. The issues, as I see them, are as-follows:

WP:RMUM: The move from “AIM-174 air-to-air missile” to “AIM-174B” was conducted without discussion, and I maintain all post-move discussions have achieved "no consensus."

Burden of Proof: The onus should be on the mover of the undiscussed title to justify their change, not on others to defend the original title. I refrained from reverting the move during the MRV process out of politeness, which should not shift the burden of proof onto me.

Precedent: I am concerned with the precedent. Undiscussed moves may be brute-forced into acceptance even if "no consensus" or a very slim consensus (WP:NOTAVOTE) is found?

Argument in-favor of "AIM-174:" See Talk:AIM-174B#Requested_move_20_September_2024 for arguments in-favor and against. However, I would like to make it clear that I was the only person arguing WP. Those in-favor of "174B" were simply disagreeing with my WP arguments, but not offering their own in-support of "174B." That said, my primary WP-based argument is likely WP:CONSISTENT; ALL U.S. air-to-air-missiles use the base model as their article title. See: AIM-4 Falcon, AIM-26 Falcon, AIM-47 Falcon, AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-54 Phoenix, AIM-68 Big Q, AIM-82, AIM-95 Agile, AIM-97 Seekbat, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132, AIM-152 AAAM, AIM-260. 174"B" is unnecessary while violating consistency.

TO BE CLEAR, I am not alleging bad faith on behalf of anyone, and I am extremely grateful to all those who have been involved, particularly the RM/MRV closers that I will be naming here. I would like to make it clear that this isn't simply a case of a MRV 'not going my way.' Again, I am concernd w/ the precedent and with the onus having been shifted to me for months.

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

-Original RM/reversion discussion on article's talk page
-Post-closure discussion w/ ORIGINAL RM closer
-MRV
-Post-MRV closure discussion w/ MRV closer
-Post-MRV closure discussion w/ ORIGINAL RM closer (as-suggested by ModernDayTrilobite)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ideally, I would request reversion to "AIM-174." Failing that, I would request reversion to the 'true' original title, "AIM-174 air-to-air-missile" and the onus be shifted onto the individual wishing to move this article to complete an RM. Otherwise, a review of my policy argument(s) weighed against the apparent "consensus" (which I, personally, deny exists).

I strongly believe that this move violates WP. That said, I will happily accept any resolution offered, here.

Summary of dispute by Asukite

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

Summary of dispute by ModernDayTrilobite

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

AIM-174B discussion

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (AIM-174B)

I was about to close this request for at least two reasons, one procedural, one substantive. The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. That is procedural, and could be corrected if this were a right forum. The substantive reason is that DRN is not the forum for discussing a page titling dispute, or for discussing a matter that has been discussed via a consensus procedure such as Requested Moves or Move Review. It appears that the problem is that, first, there was a bold undiscussed move, and the filing editor disagrees with the undiscussed move. It then appears that the filing editor first filed a Requested Move to undo the move, but it resulted in No Consensus. The filing editor then filed a Move Review, and it resulted in No Consensus. So the filing editor is looking for a forum to overturn the bold undiscussed move. Is that correct? It appears that the editor who renamed the page, when there is no consensus, has a first-mover advantage.

I am instead leaving this thread open at this point to discuss what if anything the filing editor should do next. My thought is that the filing editor should ask at Village pump (policy) what the next step is. DRN is not the right forum, but I won't close this thread until we can determine what the right forum, if any, is. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct, that is essentially what I am asking. I realize it’s a bit convoluted, so, I’m happy to proceed to VP. Don’t need to keep it open for my sake. But I also realize that it may a bit too early to do so and it’s a weekend. Point being, though, I will not complain if you feel that the discussion is not moving anywhere and wish to close this. That said, I was under the impression that I only needed to notify the users whom I mentioned and had taken action regarding this, I apologize for the procedural error. EDIT: Oh, I just realized I didn’t even notify the users I mentioned! I am so sorry! Should I do so? Or since this is the incorrect forum should I just leave it as-is for now?Thank you for your patience, this is my first time taking things to this level. MWFwiki (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)