Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
Informal venue for resolving content disputes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This is an informal place to resolve 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.
| Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
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:
Open/close quick reference
|
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Zack Polanski | Closed | Greenpark79 (t) | 9 days, 21 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 8 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 8 days, |
| Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates | Closed | Logoshimpo (t) | 3 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 17 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.
Current disputes
Zack Polanski
| Closed due to no notice to other editors. It has been 48 hours since a note was posted saying that the filing editor was required to notify the other editors, but there has been no such notice. Resume discussion at the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here, and the other editors must be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
| Closed as declined. Randy Kryn has erased the notice of noticeboard filing, which is a way of declining to participate in moderated discussion, and moderated discussion is voluntary. EurekaLott has not responded to the notice in 48 hours, during which they have been editing. Also, it appears that Logoshimpo is trying to discuss the same issue both at DRN and in a Request for Comments. There is a malformed RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Request_for_comment_on_arbitrary_truncation by Logoshimpo which appears to be about the same topic. Is Logoshimpo trying to discuss their issue with what they call leaderboard navboxes in two places?
My first thought had been to close this request with advice to resume discussion at the article talk page, or in this case the project talk page. However, there has already been discussion with a rough consensus against what Logoshimpo is seeking. One option for them would be to accept that they are in a minority. This leaves the question of what they can do if they are not satisfied. If they really want to involve the community, the way to do that is an RFC. The RFC that they have started is malformed, and should be ended. If they want assistance, I am willing to work with them to try to formulate a new RFC, but they will have to explain to my satisfaction why they think that leaderboard navboxes should be outlawed, and will have to agree not to launch their own RFC until I am satisfied that it is ready to go to the community. Logoshimpo can either accept that they are in the minority or ask me to work with them to develop an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|