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
Jagtar Singh Hawara	Closed	Write&Publish (t)	3 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 16 hours
Washtub Bass	Closed	DaveCW (t)	2 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 7 hours
RRR	On hold	SaibaK (t)	2 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours	SaibaK (t)	1 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 07:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Jagtar Singh Hawara

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Write&Publish on 22:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Jagtar Singh Hawara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Write&Publish (talk · contribs) GSS (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Revert by user GSS because he had an issue with the lead section. However, I revised it to reflect his concern. My edit contains generally the same content, and I have improved the grammar and updated the references with reliable sources. GSS says he has an issue with other areas of the edit; however, after asking which other sentance, he has not yet specified. If there is an issue with a particular sentence, it could be revised. Why revert the entire edit, which took me considerable time to contribute? I'm trying to resolve this in good faith; however, it does not seem the same from the opposing side. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Jagtar Singh Hawara#Revert by GSS User talk:GSS#Jagtar Singh Hawara How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? My contribution should be respected, and if there is an issue with a particular sentence, it could be revised, I am open to compromise. Summary of dispute by GSS Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Write&Publish is attempting to whitewash the article by pushing the same narrative that user "1forever&ever" had previously promoted. When asked to explain why they removed crucial information from the lead section, they failed to provide a convincing answer, responding instead with "In my opinion." Additionally, the user removed essential content from the infobox and other parts of the article and added content without proper sourcing. This behavior mirrors that of user "1forever&ever," who was blocked just three months before this account was created. Given the similarities between their contributions and those of "1forever&ever," I have filed a SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NZMann). Thank you, GSS 💬 05:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Jagtar Singh Hawara 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.

Washtub Bass

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by DaveCW on 22:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Washtub bass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DaveCW (talk · contribs) TaipeiScene (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is an edit war for "Washtub Bass" page. An unknown player has been added to the Notable Players section. I say unknown, because provided citations list multiple washtub players in one band, and do not correspond to the player name given in the article's text. Merely playing an instrument does not rise to the level of notability. No citation makes note of any specific player. No citation makes note of the instrument beyond a simple list. No citation makes note of any proficiency on the instrument. No citation links to a recording with notable playing on it. The provided citations also list guitar and mandolin among other instruments, but no one would accept this as proof of notability in the Wikipedia articles on guitar or mandolin. Particularly egregious was the original deletion of the clarification that "Grammy nominated" refers to the packaging design. This is an important qualification for readers - important enough to be deleted by an obvious self-promoter. Deletion of this potentially embarrassing qualification is indicative of the promotional stance of TaipeiScene, and their unsuitability as a judge of notability. The nature of the instrument seems to invite commercial and band promotion. Some geographic locations might only have one band with a washtub. Such bands often have a rotating slate of washtub players, suggesting that serious practice time is not involved. For example, the Quarry Men had 4 players, none of whom rose to notability for their virtuosity - rather they are notable because of the extraordinary history of Quarry Men and the Beatles. There were multiple bands in the UK with tea-chest basses, including bands that Ringo Star and Van Morrison played in, but also many more. They cannot be listed as notable because there were so many. This band appears to be the only one in their area - not enough for notability outside of their locality. I have responded in the form of giving reasons for reverting, and on the article's Talk page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Washtub_bass How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? This edit war is not going to end until someone steps in. I have put to much care into this page to see it descend into self-promotion, and I have been consistent in this for years. Summary of dispute by TaipeiScene Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Washtub Bass discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. It appears "Washtub bass" is the correct spelling of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveCW (talk • contribs) 22:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC) 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.

RRR

– This request has been placed on hold.

Filed by SaibaK on 00:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• SaibaK (talk · contribs)
• Jayanthkumar123 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Movie RRR gathered praise from international filmmakers such as Steven Spielberg, James Cameron etc and is widely covered by Indian and international media such as Variety, Times Of India, Hindusan Times, Economic Times etc. To cover this had a section was made to list the international filmmakers which praised it with detailed citations. However, some editors are deleting it again and again saying that it can't be included despite it being newsworthy and notable and being covered by national and international newspapers. We have discussed this extensively on the Talk page over the months, but the dispute continues. I had also opened another dispute resolution page but the warring editor avoided participation in it.

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

[1], [2],[3]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Kindly provide comment on a) whether or not the well cited that has been covered by national and international media qualifies as containing notable information, b) is well cited or not c) should it be entirely deleted despite being notable and well cited because of another editor's personal preferences?

Summary of dispute by Jayanthkumar123

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

Before having a discussion here, it is better to have a discussion on the article's talk page. I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page. [4]--Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

We've had the discussion in the talk pages for a long time but @Jayanthkumar123 has been avoiding official moderator view (he evaded participation in the previous dispute resolution here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#RRR ) and is avoiding summarizing his position here again because he's not following Wikipedia's official policy of including 'notable and verifiable' content.

I will request a moderator's/volunteer's neutral third party's view on this topic,through this dispute resolution please. SaibaK (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

RRR discussion

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

Zeroth statement by moderator (RRR)

I am ready to moderate this dispute if the editors are ready for moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D and agree to it. This discussion will be subject to contentious topic rules because the movie was made in India. Discuss edits, not editors. Be civil and concise. In particular, be concise, and discuss article content, not each other. I will ask each editor to state or summarize, in one paragraph, what they want to change in the article that the other editor wants to leave alone, or what they want to leave alone that the other editor wants to change. Be specific at DRN, which means to say what sections and paragraphs of the article you want to change (or leave the same). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Robert McClenon . I agree to DRN Rule D .

In one paragraph my position is as follows:

I'll request for the section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RRR&oldid=1237751973#Reception_by_international_filmmakers or at least the information contained within to be retained because this is highly pertinent to the reception of the movie and is covered in headlines by international and national newspapers/magazines such as Variety, Times of India, Hindustan Times, Economic Times etc. as can be seen from the citation. SaibaK (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There are many other editors who have contributed to the article, they might participate in the discussion. Seems like you are not interested in having a discussion with other editors. For example, see here [5], during the time, only you and other editor have discussed, that too he didn't agreed with your decision to add the section, but you have the discussion citing "As per the discussion in this wiki's Talk page." The discussion was done by only two, that too he didn't agree with your edits, but yet you said as per discussion. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC) So, you think you're following the wikipedia guidelines correctly @Jayanthkumar123 ? In that case you have no issue with agreeing the dispute resolution process by the moderator here, right? SaibaK (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC) UPDATE: on RRR talk page, acting administrator, @Isabelle Belato has noted that @Jayanthkumar123's actions seems like WP:STONEWALLING SaibaK (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (RRR)

Read DRN Rule D. I said "Comment on content, not contributors" (D.4). I also said "Discuss edits, not editors" (D.4.3), which is the same thing, in order to repeat the rule. I have collapsed complaints by each editor about the other editor.

Rule D.5 says not to edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Both of you edited the article after I stated the rule. You were both correctly rebuked by User:Isabelle Belato.

SaibaK wrote, in an edit summary: User @jayanthkumar123 is ignoring two wikipedia dispute resolutions and vandalizing the article.. If you believed that the other editor's edits were vandalism, why didn't you report them at the vandalism noticeboard? If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. If, after thinking, you think that the edits were vandalism, you still should report them at AIV. If vandalism is reported, I will close this dispute as failed, because DRN is for content disputes, and vandalism is a conduct issue.

I am placing this discussion on hold until you both acknowledge re-reading DRN Rule D again, and until I get an answer about vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Robert McClenon.

Thanks for your comments. You're right, I shall strive to follow rule DRN rule D better.

I acknowledge re-reading DRN Rule D and accept it.

About vandalism: after closer reading, I now think that this isn't a case of vandalism but I do think that my well researched and well cited content is being stonewalled and I'd like to request dispute resolution on whether or not that content is 'notable and verifiable' and should be included.

And thus I request your kind mediation.

Thanks. SaibaK (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)