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 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.
| ||||||||||||
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar | Failed | Southasianhistorian8 (t) | 18 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 23 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 23 hours |
| Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov | In Progress | Trumpetrep (t) | 7 days, 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, |
| Eastern Tennessee seismic zone | Closed | Mccunicano (t) | 2 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 2 hours |
| Breyers | New | Zefr (t) | 1 days, 8 hours | None | n/a | Zefr (t) | 1 days, 8 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 19:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
 | If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputes
[edit]Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar
[edit]
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as opened by mistake. This case should never have been opened here because there was already a dispute between two of these editors at Arbitration Enforcement that included this article. Continue discussion at Arbitration Enforcement. When the conduct dispute is resolved, survivors may resume discussion at the article talk page. The instructions that I gave to prepare draft sections of any parts to be changed is still good advice when discussing on an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed 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 Primarily determining the public figure/profile status of a person named Arsh Dalla. Both GhostOfDanGurney and Simonm223 are invoking WP:BLPCRIME as well as WP:COATRACK for this figure despite me highlighting numerous sources reporting on this individual since at least January 2023-thus fulfilling the requirement laid out in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, sources in which Dalla has actively sought media attention by speaking to prominent journalists in which he himself confessed to killing people thus making him ineligible to be considered a low profile person as per WP:LOWPROFILE, and naturally these confessions would make the media report on him. In addition, there is significant precedence and a near ubiquitous norm in Wikipedia crime articles in which a person accused of a well documented crime, who has not attained any notability outside their alleged criminal activity, whose conviction status is pending or criminal proceedings are underway, is named, the allegations against them are openly discussed, and their backgrounds exhaustively discussed. Simonm223 contests that to discuss accusations against a person, we must first establish notability independent of any accusations of criminal activity, and if lacking, establish that they have been convicted of a crime, to proceed. I have yet to come across any policy page which outlines such criteria. Also if a volunteer could clarify: how long am I allowed to make my section? And what are the rules for responding to others? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hardeep_Singh_Nijjar How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Through neutral mediation Summary of dispute by GhostOfDanGurney[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My issue with the edit to Hardeep Singh Nijjar re: Arsh Dalla is beyond the BLPCRIME issue. It goes into the aspect of using another person's arrest to further a POV that Nijjar was a militant extremist. Even if Dalla had a Wikipedia article, I would have still made that revert per WP:COATRACK/WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS. I believe that section of the article already has sufficient (if not already overly sufficient) coverage on the unproven allegations of militancy (mostly via "Nijjar was friends with x, y, and z"). Adding this "breaking news" content on the arrest (just an arrest) of Dalla was unneeded piling-on (another "coat", per COATRACK). Similarly, it fails WP:NOTNEWS, specifically 1) WP:NOTGOSSIP, because Dalla and Nijjar's connection was also only alleged. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Simonm223[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ultimately the core of this dispute is whether a BLP can become a WP:PUBLICFIGURE on the basis of media attention for a crime they have not been convicted of. It is not disputed that Arsh Dalla has spoken to the press... Regarding the crimes he has been accused of in India and for which Canada has declined extradition. However this media coverage is only because of the high profile India has placed on him as the suspect of a crime. He is otherwise an unremarkable plumber from Surrey. In light of the strong language in WP:BLPCRIME regarding discussing unproven accusations against private people it is my contention that it is inappropriate to discuss him in a Wikipedia article or, frankly, at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Hardeep Singh_Nijjar)[edit]I am ready to conduct moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D. This is a contentious topic because it involves India and so is within the scope of the ArbCom decision on India and Pakistan. By agreeing to participate in this discussion. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Hardeep Singh Nijjar)[edit]Hi, firstly thank you for agreeing to act as a moderator here @RobertMcClenon. This is a relatively esoteric and hyper partisan topic on Wikipedia, and I'm hoping this platform will guide us to consensus through Wikipedia policy. I believe some context may be needed here: Hardeep Singh Nijjar was a Sikh activist who lived in British Columbia, who advocated for the secession of Punjab from India, in order to create a religious state called Khalistan; the movement faced a heavy crackdown in India during the 1980s and 1990s, and many supporters of the movement moved abroad. India had accused Nijjar of heading a Khalistani militant outfit and directing violent crime in India, well before he gained mainstream attention and notoriety in Canada after his 2023 killing. The Indian media released photos of Nijjar brandishing an AK-47 and Nijjar alongside another prominent Khalistani militant (who by his own account admitted to having directed killings in favour of the movement) a decade beforehand. His name was included on a "most wanted person list" the Chief Minister of Punjab gave to the Canadian Prime Minister in 2018. After his killing, Canadian authorities accused Indian government agents (and later diplomats) of having played a role in the killing, which incited a major diplomatic fallout. Canada and India have long had strained relations over the issue of the alleged harbouring of Khalistani militants, with India accusing Canada of being a refuge for them and being unwilling to crack down on Khalistan militants. We have a section on Nijjar's Wikipedia page "Allegations of militant activities" where India's accusations against him are discussed. A substantial amount of that section was written through this Canadian Globe and Mail report, which analyzed some of the claims against him, and seemingly corroborated some of them (indicating that Nijjar was affiliated and involved in some capacity with Khalistan Tiger Force, had connections with prominent militants, close Canadian associates stating he led 5 men in weapons, GPS, target practice in the BC wilderness etc) and disputed others (stating that Canadian authorities did not believe India provided sufficient evidence to arrest Nijjar, that Indian diplomats were overzealous in labelling some of Nijjar's activism as "terrorism".) India, for some time has alleged that Nijjar was associated with Arsh Dalla, reportedly a gangster who absconded to Canada in 2018, accused of directing crime and murders in India in favour of the Khalistan movement. Dalla and Nijjar lived in the same city, were in the same profession (plumbing), and Dalla went to the same Sikh temple Nijjar was the head of. Arsh Dalla has himself talked to the Indian media, stating that he killed people and committed violent crimes, and was recently arrested in Ontario in connection to a violent shooting. India requested his extradition from Canada, but it supposedly was rejected. My stance is that we should include a brief few sentences or paragraphs surrounding Dalla's alleged connection to Nijjar. This is consistent with the tone and content already in the aforementioned section, which was agreed upon between myself and GoDG back in June/July. As militancy is often conducted through concerted efforts with other like minded individuals, we should provide details of associations, if 1) Those associations were discussed or alleged in length in WP:RS and 2) if Nijjar used the association to conduct or facilitate clandestine activities, either though his own direct involvement or commands. This is what the Globe and Mail report:
These are 2 recent CTV (another prominent Canadian news organization) reports: Dalla has lived in Canada for several years. According to multiple media reports in India, he’s also a known associate of Hardeep Nijjar -- a Sikh separatist activist who was involved with the Khalistan movement which calls for an independent Sikh state. This CTV report states as a matter of fact that Dalla was a former associate of Nijjar's. We also have various reliable Indian news reports which state that Nijjar was associated with Dalla. I will be citing The Hindu and The Indian Express, both of which regularly provide very well researched and comprehensive news. There is already consensus on Wikipedia that these 2 sources are reliable-The Hindu in RSP and The Indian Express in RSP. The Hindu statesThe Indian Express states
My stance is specifically to summarize the Globe report, the CTV reports, and the last 2 sources to provide a brief explanation about Nijjar and Dalla's alleged association, something along the lines of
First statement by possible moderator (Hardeep Singh_Nijjar)[edit]One editor has made a concise statement that information about Arsh Dalla should not be included in the article. Another editor has made a concise statement that the information about Arsh Dalla should be removed from the article. Another editor has made a statement that is long, when I asked for a concise statement, about Arsh Dalla, and says that a few sentences or paragraphs about Arsh Dalla should be included in the article. (A 1380-word statement is not concise.) There is no mention in the article about Arsh Dalla. It appears that there is a content dispute because one editor wants to add material about Arsh Dalla and the other two editors do not want the information included. My request to the editor who wants to discuss Arsh Dalla is: Write the draft paragraph about Arsh Dalla, and let the other two editors and the moderator read it. After we know exactly what the proposed added text is, we can discuss better, and can better assess whether it will satisfy the policy on biographies of living persons, and the guideline on due weight. Are there any other content issues, or any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Hardeep Singh Nijjar)[edit]
Second statement by moderator (Hardeep Singh_Nijjar)[edit]One editor has stated that they want to add information about Arsh Dalla to the article. Another editor has stated that they want to shorten the section on Allegations of militant activity. The editor who wants to add information about Arsh Dalla is asked to write the draft paragraphs for review. The editor who wants to trim the section on allegations of militant activity is asked to write a draft shortened section for review. After the draft sections are available for review, I will ask for comments on them. Are there any other content issues, or any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Hardeep Singh Nijjar)[edit]
|
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
- 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
[edit]Summary of dispute by Antniomanso
[edit]Summary of dispute by NipponGinko
[edit]Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria
[edit]Summary of dispute by Gerda Arendt
[edit]Summary of dispute by Ian Rose
[edit]Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov discussion
[edit]- 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)
- 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 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 - 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)
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)
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)
Nikolai Andreyevich Rimsky-Korsakov | |
|---|---|
 Portrait of Rimsky-Korsakov in 1898 by Valentin Serov (detail) | |
| Born | March 18, 1844 |
| Died | June 21, 1908 (aged 64) |
| 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 |
|
| Relatives | Voin 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)
First statements by editors (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov)
[edit]Eastern Tennessee seismic zone
[edit] | Closed as premature. There has been very little discussion either at the article talk page or at the AFD, and only discussion at the article talk page is a prerequisite. Discuss at the article talk page, Talk:Eastern Tennessee seismic zone. If discussion there is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed 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 Users involved
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[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
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
- 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?