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)	9 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 16 hours
Eastern Tennessee seismic zone	Closed	Mccunicano (t)	3 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 19 hours
Breyers	New	Zefr (t)	3 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours
Dragon Age: The Veilguard	New	Sariel Xilo (t)	20 hours	None	n/a	Sariel Xilo (t)	20 hours
Johanna Olson-Kennedy	New	96.36.47.50 (t)	6 hours	None	n/a	Usr Trj (t)	5 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 11:46, 6 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)

Eastern Tennessee seismic zone

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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Mccunicano on 17:12, 2 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 Eastern Tennessee seismic zone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mccunicano (talk · contribs) Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article 2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake was redirected here after a discussion there rather than talk page here that it didn't warrant an article alone, but that it's content was valuable to this article. The user who initiated the afd for that article has issue with any mention of the earthquake existing anywhere despite the consensus of the closed afd. The only discussion we've had on this article is in the edit comments. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think that prose of the article should include mention of the event since it did garner widespread coverage. The list of events on the article may not be the best way to incorporate the earthquake, but an editor could turn the list into prose. I don't have confidence I could do that without the other user reverting the edit. Eastern Tennessee seismic zone 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.

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)

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

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

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

– New 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

1. 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.
2. 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 [1]. 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

1. 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.
2. 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)

1. Claims that removing the passage will create the impression that no research was published at all.
2. 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.