Revision as of 05:24, 14 October 2017

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

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 22:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

Talk:Longest-reigning emperors_in_China

DRN doesn't accept any case which is subject to any other notice-board or equivalent procedure.So, folks, battle it out at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Longest-reigning emperors in China. Winged Blades of Godric 15:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Al-Khalid tank

DRN is non-binding, however both parties must agree to participate in the process. If an editor is unwilling to take part in the dispute resolution process, we are unable to assist. -- Dane 20:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for_deletion/Kang_Daniel_(2nd_nomination)

We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Articles for deletion. Nihlus 16:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Toronto#Changes to_the_First_Paragraph_of_the_Lead

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Toronto#Changes to the First Paragraph of the Lead (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JPark99 (talk · contribs)
• Saboteurest (talk · contribs)
• Alaney2k (talk · contribs)
• Johnny Au (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute over proposed changes to the lead section of the Toronto article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted a discussion on the talk page, also requested a third opinion and was directed here.

How do you think we can help?

Provide an outside, neutral opinion.

Summary of dispute by Saboteurest

Summary of dispute by Alaney2k

My concern is mostly that the quality of the text could be improved. I think that, mainly, having the most-populous text, etc., the positive text is normal for an article of this type. I think that it is important to be objective too and the text comes across as self-important. As someone who has visited most of Canada, lived elsewhere in Canada, I do agree that Toronto by itself is the most important city in Canada in many fields, and in some ways, (like English TV) dominates Canada, but it's not by a "country mile". Mostly, it is a fast-growing, prosperous city. It has problems - homelessness, poverty, income disparity, automobile traffic, public transit gap and I would like to see those reflected in the lead. There's a bit too much about ranking. Alaney2k (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Johnny Au

Though I'm a major contributor to the article, I am seeking consensus. I am not asking much. That is all. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Toronto#Changes to_the_First_Paragraph_of_the_Lead discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. I have added an editor. The filing party should notify the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I have added an editor and notified non-filing participants of discussion. Nihlus 17:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Saboteurest has not edited in over a week. If they do not respond to messages soon, we will move on. @JPark99, Alaney2k, and Johnny Au: Do you feel this DR is necessary in light of Saboteurest's inactivity? If so, we can continue it; otherwise, I will close it. Feel free to respond below this message. Nihlus 21:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I will wait for consensus first before we decide. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I would like Saboteurest to have the chance to have their say. I agree fully with Alaney2k's comments in this discussion, and agree with the changes proposed. I'd like to add that the extremely high housing prices in Toronto could be reflected in the lead along with other problems the city faces, as it has created a major housing crisis. My disagreements with Saboteurest have been primarily about the removal of statistics and other data about the city, and language used to describe the city. I think it would be beneficial to keep this discussion open for one more week, to give everyone a chance to comment. JPark99 (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree with extending the discussion by a week to be fair. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Although, not customary, I will keep this thread open for the next seven days to allow Saboteurest a chance to respond per the agreement of participants. The case will be on hold until then. Nihlus 02:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tulpa#Usage of references_to_reddit_and_social_networks

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Tulpa#Usage of references to reddit and social networks (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BrightR (talk · contribs)
• Seteleechete (talk · contribs)
• Farcaller (talk · contribs)
• CliffracerX (talk · contribs)
• 96.63.57.115 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The talk page links to the beginning of the dispute; in general, three editors keep using citations inappropriately and incorporate poor citations (reddit discussions, internet forums, predatory journals, original synthesis) and misrepresent existing sources through weasel words by making claims and not attributing them, as if they are attributed to the source ("tulpas are understood..." (by who?) by the practitioners, not by scientific research). The dispute is made more and more difficult to manage because the editors keep splitting the discussion between more and more talk page sections.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

When this dispute was between two editors (myself and Seteleechete) I solicited a third opinion. When the third opinion agreed that the article cannot put so much emphasis on personal opinions of tulpa practitioners, three other editors joined in and started adding dubious sources and using weasel words to misattribute personal feelings by tulpa practitioners as if they were scientific studies.

How do you think we can help?

Make it clear that these dubious sources do not meet Misplaced Pages reliable-source standards (predatory journals, internet forums, personal blogs), that editors cannot use synthesis (taking a paper about the DSM and attributing its findings to the condition of tulpa practitioners), and that in order to properly discuss the differences, the editors cannot split the discussion among five or six sections, and should centralize discussion as it all pertains to the same issue.

Summary of dispute by Seteleechete

Summary of dispute by Farcaller

To start of with the dispute points:

• "misrepresent existing sources through weasel words by making claims and not attributing them" — all the claims were backed by citations where applicable, based on works of Vessiere and, later, Isler. If the claims were made to look like they are not attributed to, the only reason to that was excessive cutting.
• "as if they are attributed to the source ("tulpas are understood..." (by who?) by the practitioners, not by scientific research" — tulpas are a cultural and mass media phenomenon. The source of truth on the current use of the word likes in the community resources to begin with (although recent scientific research is only welcome)
• "the dispute is made more and more difficult to manage because the editors keep splitting the discussion between more and more talk page sections." — I will take the blame on that one; I treated the reverted edits as dedicated issues and created a new section per each one to make sure the discussion is focused on the distinct edits.
• "that editors cannot use synthesis (taking a paper about the DSM and attributing its findings to the condition of tulpa practitioners)" — that wasn't the case. The original text before the edit references Isler's work.

Onto my point.

The article, historically, dealt with the Buddhist notion of the word tulpa, which is only of historical interest at the moment. The same word is used broadly in mass media to define many other things (e.g. the Spanish version of the article has a long list of "tulpa" used in media for a different context). Additionally, the word has a dedicated meaning for an internet subculture, which is broad enough to be of wikipedia interest and is being researched in a more formal way too.

It would be unreasonable to pretend that split doesn't exist. The article was plagued by some community members with e.g. links to tulpa.info, so I took extra care to find more reputable sources that don't include links to "an internet forum". While I did use WP:SOCIALMEDIA, I believe this is a fair use case of tulpa practitioners from mass media describing their personal experiences, which is accepted under self-published source criteria.

As of the current moment, there isn't solid scientific backing of the mechanisms of modern day tulpa concept, so the amount of the actual research to be referenced is limited. But as it is a growing social and media factor, I expect that adding the relevant material would be good for the overall article quality.

On a side note, I believe some references that are made in the Buddhist part of the article are controversial to themselves. E.g. the reference "The Dalai Lama mentioned in a public statement that his successor might appear via sprul-pa while the current Dalai Lama is still alive" isn't reflected in the original source, that instead talks about tulku (tulku has a dedicated article on wikipedia); while later in the tulpa article the quote says "The power of producing magic formations, tulkus or less lasting and materialized tulpas". It is clear that the primary source of the buddhist part, A. David-Néel saw tulpas and tulku as different concepts, thus some of the references made in the previous parts are incorrect and cannot relate to tulpa (or sprul-pa).

Summary of dispute by CliffracerX

The things I have problems with are as follows.

First, BrightR's treatment of fellow editors edges into the realm of violating the 4th pillar. Community guideline violations don't speak good things about an editor, especially when they're working hard to prove themselves "in the right" - it reeks of trying to discredit PoVs that you don't like.

Secondly, "POV-pushing" - the NPoV may be impossible, but BrightR has engaged in just as much POV-pushing against the Tulpas community as Farcaller and Seteleechete have pushed for it. BrightR's edits that trample the Tulpa community don't get reverted, but our edits that try to provide open-minded representation of a widely-misunderstood topic will get reverted and BrightR will call us POVpushers on the talk page. Again, the fourth pillar is violated.

Thirdly, the idea that there can't be more representation of the community's ideals. This is maybe not appropriate for an edit dispute, but the fact that so many people say "no, we can't share more of their PoV!" strikes an uncomfortable note. Misplaced Pages is the first line of information for plenty of people, and it discredits Misplaced Pages itself, the modern Tulpas community, and even the occult community, to cram all these separate ideas into one page, with so little info on what the practical end-result of any idea might be.

People don't have a frame of reference for Tulpas in any of the senses described in the article, so dedicating so much space to the history and so little to the practical end-results (e.g, the appearance of 2 people, 1 brain) means that people will come in looking for info because they found out a friend has Tulpas, and leave none the wiser for it - a critical failure of what makes Misplaced Pages great.

Basically; I think BrightR is engaging in just as much POVpushing as he accuses others of, and that until more "Misplaced Pages acceptable" information is available (e.g, more papers in the vein of Isler's that actually study the topic, that aren't put up on bad journals, get external reviews, etc), and while the team continues to side with people like BrightR, then the modern definition section will remain of questionable neutrality, and provide very little information that's practical to a curious reader - it may be for the best that it just be removed outright.

Summary of dispute by 96.63.57.115

I should probably register an actual account if I am going to be involved in an actual dispute discussion. Anyhow, The article in question has always been plagued by inaccuracies and such. As a notable phenomenon a lot of people are interested in, it would be nice if Misplaced Pages's coverage of the phenomenon were accurate. I recently created a discussion thread on the topic on the talk page, talking about what I believe is the single biggest inaccuracy in the article, a very incorrect portrayal of the link between tulpas and Buddhism.

I feel sorry for probably antagonising some people in the process of airing my frustrations. 96.63.57.115 (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit: After some reflection, I feel the reason I came here is not the issue at stake in this debate. So I will try to comment on that as a third party briefly.

Two main editors, BrightR, and Farcaller. BrightR is overstepping their authority by making arbitrary reversions of Farcaller's work without sufficient justification. Farcaller is terrible at arguing. I wouldn't be surprised if he just gave up at this point.

One core issue is the reliability of Ister's paper which has been incorrectly measured by both parties in different directions. (1) Reliability by publishing. It is officially published. However, the journal is alleged to have an improper review process. The evidence put forward for this is low to moderate in strength. (2) Reliability by reputation. The idea that Ister's reputation must be based on academic achievement is obviously false. However, it is also the most objective measure possible, so it is a shame he wrote the paper while in high school. Nonetheless, amongst the core expert group of tulpas, tulpas and tulpamancers, Ister is considered a leading authority. (3) Reliability by integrity of the content. Ister's paper is new, so it lacks independent confirmation of the reliability of the content in terms of being cited or being reviewed in other articles. However, this evidence will be created over time. 96.63.57.115 (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tulpa#Usage of references_to_reddit_and_social_networks discussion

•  Volunteer note: There has been extensive discussion on the talk page and all the parties have been notified. The discussion however has been broken up into several sections. A volunteer may go through the discussion and open this dispute. The parties are requested to refrain from editing the page concerned in the meanwhile. Other participants who have been notified but are yet to file their summary statements are requested to do so within 48 hours. Those not willing to participate can simply state so in their summary sections above. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Goguryeo%E2%80%93Sui War

The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page. Dispute resolution is not appropriate at this time. Nihlus 19:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of Turkish football champions

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:List of Turkish football champions (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 1886kusagi (talk · contribs)
• Akocsg (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

According to the turkish football federation the former tournaments are not recognized as off. championships and therefore should not listed at the page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Showed off. sources and examples of the other countries lists.

How do you think we can help?

Find the true and correct form for the list

Summary of dispute by 1886kusagi

Summary of dispute by Akocsg

Talk:List of Turkish football champions discussion

Volunteer note: There has been adequate discussion on talk page. The request was malformed so I fixed it. The filling party did not notify the other editor, so I posted a notification on their talk page.--Kostas20142 (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Celebrity Mastermind

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Celebrity Mastermind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BangJan1999 (talk · contribs)
• Edwardx (talk · contribs)
• Dougal18 (talk · contribs)
• Philafrenzy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute involving whether the Episodes section of the article should stay or not.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I opened a discussion on the talk page and so far Edwardx is the only one for keeping the section.

That isn't quite what I said. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

A neutral, unbiased opinion on whether the section should stay or go.

Summary of dispute by Edwardx

On 25 September, User:Dougal18 first removed the section, with the edit summary "Removed episode guide as it is unencyclopedic and irrelevant". I restored it, "Unjustified removal of content". This continued despite my repeated mentions of WP:BRD, WP:3RR and "Use the talkpage please!" Dougal18 responded with "We don't need talk page discussion for something that has no place on Misplaced Pages". I raised it on the Edit warring noticeboard, and on 26 September, Dougal18 recieved a "last warning" for edit warring, and the page was protected. Dougal18 blanked their talkpage 87 minutes later.

On 29 September, User:BangJan1999 first became involved, starting a talkpage discussion, "Episodes section" on Talk:Celebrity_Mastermind. It is not a long discussion, and I will not attempt to summarise it, except to say that neither BangJan1999 or Dougal18 made a substantial policy-based argument.

We should keep this section, because what notable people do is notable. Of course a game show is somewhat ephemeral, but Mastermind is a long-running (since 1972) serious quiz show, and the Celebrity version has been running since 2002. The BBC episodes guide, rather than the "official" link, would be a better External link if any reader wished to verify the contestants, specialist subjects or finishing order. As I stated on the talkpage, "the content of the list is all verifiable, and could not reasonably be considered to be 'contentious material'. - this list does comply with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability." Edwardx (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dougal18

Other game shows like Pointless and The Chase had their episode guides removed/AfD'd years ago under WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:EPISODES. This should be no different. It's also unsourced. There is no info on subjects or finishing positions for some episodes. Dougal18 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Philafrenzy

The objection to the list of winners is that celebrities are being treated better or given more prominence than the non-celebrity winners of the regular series, however, the Mastermind article does also list winners of the competition although those are series winners rather than episode winners I think.

Since the celebrity version of the show is about the sometimes surprising things celebrities know and are interested in, I think the list of contestants and their subjects is the proper content of the article. It is a bit long and lacks references but that could easily be fixed. I also note that everyone mentioned has an article (I haven't checked if any of them are redirects). Philafrenzy (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Celebrity Mastermind discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

• Volunteer note - I will be moderating this discussion in attempt to help the parties reach a resolution. Please remember to be civil and comment only on content, not contributors. My responses will be guided towards a resolution acceptable to all parties and in full compliance with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. The dispute appears to be around whether or not the list of episodes is against WP:LISTCRUFT (which is not a Misplaced Pages policy) and WP:EPISODES (a content guideline). In addition, there are concerns about the celebrities receiving preferential status in the list compared to the non-celebrity winners. There is also a lack of references which could be resolved using a link that complies with WP:VERIFY. Are any of the parties against creating a separate "List of Celebrity Mastermind episodes" page which links from the main article per WP:EPISODES and allows a summary paragraph/section to recap perhaps the more prominent points from the seasons? -- Dane 21:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

First statement by editors

There wouldn't be much left in the article and I think the subject choices of the losers are probably as interesting as the winners as the losers appear all to be notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. There are no "points" let alone "pertinent points" to be made in a "List of Celebrity Mastermind episodes" page. That would mean reducing the Celebrity Mastermind page to a couple of paragraphs. Dougal18 (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Ditto Dougal18. BangJan1999 22:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone with more than a mere passing interest in the show (either the celebrity or normal version) will have pondered on what specialist subject they might chose. The choices of notable people are of interest and have encyclopaedic value, and they can afford some insight into their interior lives. What non-notable people do is not notable, as set out in WP:BLP1E. Some overall summary of the specialist subjects chosen in the "normal" series might have encyclopaedic value, but not this sort of list. The link to the BBC episodes guide I provide above would meet the demands of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Without the epsiodes list, the Celebrity Mastermind article would be rather thin. Edwardx (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

• Volunteer note - The editors agree that removing the episode list would result in the article being extremely "thin" without much content. There is no consensus for moving the episodes to a separate list article. Edwardx has provided policy rationale regarding why the list should remain (Verifiability) as well as why there is a difference in this article instead of the regular Mastermind article. Do any of the other parties have policy based rationale for why the list should be removed? Are there any compromises to how the list is presented that may be acceptable to all parties? -- Dane 01:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by editors

Talk:Robert A._Mandell#Use_of_undeclared_paid_editors_by_WWB_Too

Closed as conduct dispute. Report any undisclosed paid editing at the conflict-of-interest noticeboard. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI. This noticeboard is for content disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards