Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

DRN rules
Hi! I was wondering if there is a summary of the differences between WP:DRNA, WP:DRNB, and WP:DRNC? I see that WP:DRND and WP:DRNE are for CTOP areas, and new articles subject to CTOP rules, respectively, but there does not appear to be a summary of when the others are used. Thanks, House Blaster talk 21:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am going to BOLDly ping Best, House Blaster talk 05:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * User:HouseBlaster - I don't always check this talk page. I will provide the summary within 24 hours.  WP:DRNA is the oldest and original, and is used unless either the moderator chooses to use a different rule, or the topic is contentious.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * User:HouseBlaster - See WP:DRN Rule Guide. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We really need to fix the summary/preview function
Oof, Sorry for the poor formatting in my dispute resolution request. In my defense, it looked completely different when I hit "Next" -- There were no newlines, the links showed as text, no formatting (bold, italics, etc.) was applied -- I kept editting, based on the preview, which did not match what I am seeing now. Sorry! (Like I said in my dispute resolution request, I really am a wikipedia lightweight) -- Bertrc (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I’m having a similar problem: My DRR is not formatted correctly and there is a reference list from the immediately preceding request following mine — I hope I didn’t cause this. If I did, I greatly apologize. Also, the “What have you done” section is empty, even though I filled it in during the dispute resolution request process. Jdbtwo (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As you can see above, I accidentally overlooked that I was not logged in. If this created more problems then I sincerely apologize. Jdbtwo (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

First-timer
You seem to be running the show here (alone, for a really long time), so you probably want to take a look at my first attempt at moderating a discussion hereDispute resolution noticeboard. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Snowmanonahoe - Thank you for taking a dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon, could you please review this dispute resolution if you have the time. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Does a mention for reference in an article mandate notability
I have a dispute with another editor and could use some feedback from other editors. I appreciate any input. My main issue revolves around the Off topic / Notability guidlines. There is a person (who at this moment does not have their own wiki-article) that is in the news about participating in unlawful activity. In the reliable sources that are cited, they mention that this person was employed at a notable organization as a high ranking member. All reliable citations use one single sentence that reads, "Individual, who held this position at XYZ organization, is being charged with _______ crimes" (Or some variation of that single sentence). All reliable sources state zero correlation between the notable organization of employment and the crime being committed by the individual. There is no minority view that there would be any association between said organization and the illegal activity. There have been several editors (some who were IP editors), that have felt the need to place that information onto the page of the organization. One of the early editors to add this information felt the need to mention in their edit summary that this might not be the best place for the information and may merit deletion and to discuss it on the talk page. After challenging the inclusion of this information on the organizations article talk page, all of the editors who were involved have been pinged and asked to come discuss, as of yet none have responded(over the course of several weeks), minus one editor who seems pretty hellbent on keeping the info pertaining to the illegal, un-associated crimes on the page. His defense for inclusion of this individual's crimes within the organization's article is that mere mention for reference of his employment at said organization equals notability for that organization. In an effort to try to compromise with keeping the information on Wikipedia, as it should not be completely removed, I tried to re-locate the information about the illegal activity with creation of a page for the individual it was pertaining to, or move it over to the actual organization in which the illegal activity was associated with (Not to be confused with the notable organization in which where he was employed and has no relevance to). The editor in opposition won't budge even when I and one other editor believe that our arguments based in policy seem to be quite clear that the information is off-topic, and not relevant for inclusion. I am assuming good faith, but this editor has made it clear he will not compromise on re-locating the info and is showing patterns of WP:STONEWALLING. What is the best course of action? I will note that I tried to remove the content but new un-involved editors would come and just drop the information in again and again (there was another editor who removed the content as well), unaware of the talk page discussion(efforts to compromise) going on, and then proceed to ignore pings to come discuss their addition on the talk page. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , this isn't really the place to bring up specific disputes. In your case, I would suggest the BLP noticeboard. When you post there, remember to specify which article you are talking about; I can't make that out from anything you said above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Seraphimblade,
 * I appreciate the response. I guess I was hoping for maybe a more generic way to deal with editors ignoring discussion rooted in policy and stonewalling before making a formal complaint on the dispute noticeboard. Do you think if I have issue with that sole editor I should submit a ticket for dispute resolution or do you think the BLP noticeboard would be a better place for this type of situation? MaximusEditor (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't consider the BLP noticeboard any "formal" thing at all. It's just kind of a way to say "Hey, this looks like a BLP problem" and get some more thoughts on whether it is, and if so what should be done about it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)