Misplaced Pages

:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:00, 25 October 2024 editHackerKnownAs (talk | contribs)478 edits Fifth statement by moderator (15.ai): ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:29, 25 December 2024 edit undoItchycoocoo (talk | contribs)127 edits Zeroth statements by editors (Old Government House): bad link 
(538 intermediate revisions by 94 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
|archiveheader = {{Archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard}} |archiveheader = {{Archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 250 |counter = 252
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 19: Line 19:
=Current disputes= =Current disputes=


== Dragon Age: The Veilguard ==
== 15.ai ==


{{DR case status|open}} {{DR case status}}
<!-- ] 15:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1730562486}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! --> <!-- ] 20:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1735848408}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Ltbdl|15:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)}} {{drn filing editor|Sariel Xilo|20:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 30: Line 30:


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|15.ai}} * {{pagelinks|Dragon Age: The Veilguard}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Ltbdl}} * {{User|Sariel Xilo}}
* {{User|Thought 1915}} * {{User|BMWF}}
* {{User|RocketKnightX}} * {{User|Wikibenboy94}}
* {{User|SuperStain}}
* {{User|VexVector}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


1) Disagreement on if ] is occurring in the topline summary sentences. The arguments for including these sentences is that one sentence in the lead is an accurate summary of the article's reception section & follows ]/] & the second sentence is in a reception section paragraph & follows ] advice for opening sentences. The argument against is that SYNTH is occurring & these summary sentences should not be included.
the dispute is whether 15.ai is abandoned or not.
2) Rewriting a sentence on review bombing to remove context on negative reviews after a November talk page discussion came to consensus.

3) Other more minor disagreements about exact prose.
15.ai is an ai text-to-speech program that has been down for ~19 months. the article said that 15.ai was under maintenance until thought 1915 , and rocketknightx . i and rocketknightx edit warred over this, and i apologize for that.

those who support saying that 15.ai is abandoned include myself, thought 1915, and superstain. those who support saying that 15.ai is under maintenance include rocketknightx and vexvector.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>


*Current discussion: ]
{{section link|Talk:15.ai#Editing_with_respect_to_the_last_two_topics_of_Past_Tense}}
*Previous discussion: ]

{{section link|Talk:15.ai#The_project_is_not_abandoned.}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>


An independent review of the prose to ensure it is following policy as it seems the discussion has stalled out & to help us reach a consensus on the main content disagreements. The back and forth has led to the article being under a ] until the dispute is resolved.
by determining whether the article on 15.ai should say it is operational or abandoned.


==== Summary of dispute by Thought 1915 ==== ==== Summary of dispute by BMWF ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


==== Summary of dispute by Wikibenboy94 ====
I am so sorry if this comes off as biased or too casual; this is my first time having disputes happen. After seeing multiple talk pages in the article that suggested changing the article to past tense, I applied the change. This, seemingly, started an edit war against one who wanted to revert my change and those who were fine with my change. Talk topics have been attempted to solve this issue, one started by me after realizing that an edit war may occur without intervention. At this point, the reasoning for keeping the site in the present tense and not calling the site abandoned is that there are not enough citations and a sentiment that the site could come back up. This sentiment is only felt by one editor, as everybody else involved that I see listed in this dispute holds the opposite opinion. The opposite opinion that has been quite common among the editors involved is that the site indeed has been abandoned. This is because of a lack of contact for over 18 months, the domain being used to host completely unrelated projects (see tf215ai), and the fact that multiple other sites allegedly made by 15 (see ponybest) have been found. After third-party intervention, a decision to stop editing until a consensus was reached occurred. Some of the editors claim that RocketKnightX may have a bias that prevents neutrality in the article. Checking RocketKnightX's user contributions can help a third party conclude this general sentiment. There is one point I would like to highlight in this dispute: there has been no contact or mention of 15ai for more than a year; the site no longer appears on a search engine. If we were to classify the site as abandoned or under maintenance, how would it be cited? Would the amount of time without any contact and the usage of the domain for different projects be enough to consider the site abandoned? Once again, I apologize for any bias in my statement.
The edits and justifications on the article by BMWF, who appears to have an ardent approach to following certain rules and guidelines, I have found particularly questionable. In my opinion:


1. The aforementioned summaries, in both the lead and body, of points in the reception section do not amount to ], and reception summaries in leads for countless articles would be removed if it did.
==== Summary of dispute by RocketKnightX ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


2. Including the ] player base numbers is not relevant for the lead, at least not in place of the lack of official sales figures, and where the sales section largely consists of theorising how much ''Dragon Age: Veilguard'' has sold.
Okay. So, 15 said "I've been alerted that there appears to be a coordinated attack against my project by another service, with affiliated groups spreading rumors that I had abandoned 15.ai, or that I had placed it behind a paywall, or that I had killed myself, etc. I assure you that I am still the same stubborn person I was three years ago when I first launched my project – please don't believe these malicious lies. I'm doing the best I can, and I'll always continue to do so." They tried to mean that the project was not abandoned and is in under maintenance, but some people still not convinced due to waiting too long. The only reason why the project isn't up is that it needs to be perfect, as quality is more important than quantity.


3. Identifying each platform for the game that was given a Metacritic consensus of "generally favorable" is redundant when the consensuses are the same for all the platforms; they should only be identified if there are differing consensuses, or at most should be written as "for all platforms".
==== Summary of dispute by SuperStain ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


4. The invoking of ] while changing the wording so that a critic of the game "said" instead of "thought" and "referred to" instead of "criticized" I don't find warranted for what was initially written (note there are other instances of the words "thought" and "criticized" still remaining in the section). Similarly, the initial wording of "offensive reviews" I feel is more neutral and less loaded than "abusive reviews".
My involvement in this dispute began some months ago when I noticed that an editor had been reverting edits made to the 15.ai page that could be interpreted as painting the website in a negative light. After noticing these edits, I took it upon myself to clean up the page, removing irrelevant and potentially biased passages, fixing certain spelling errors and adding archived references. A few months later, I returned to the article's talk page to provide insight into a discussion being held on the status of 15.ai, some of which now serves as the foundation for arguments in favour of classifying the website as abandoned. A few weeks later, I checked on the article again and found that an edit war had arisen between two editors, one believing the site to be abandoned and the other holding out hope for the site's return. Feeling that 15.ai had been down for long enough to justify classifying the website as abandoned, I edited parts of the page in order to counteract revisions made to label the site as "under maintenance". Conscious of potential 3RR violations, I made sure to limit myself to two of these edits before moving on with my day. Echoing Thought 1915's feelings, I believe RocketKnightX to be biased in favour of 15.ai. However, I also feel that another editor, HackerKnownAs, who I alluded to previously in my statement, to hold similar biases, as their account was created the same day as many of the articles sourced, and their contribution history seems to be comprised exclusively of edits made to protect the website's image and to remove mentions of competing websites/15.ai's ongoing downtime. I feel the best course of action here would be to classify 15.ai as abandoned, and to investigate the article's overall edit history to determine how much of this page was written with bias.


5. I am less invested in how the review bombing is outlined, though do think some mention should be made on how Steam requires proof that you have played the game first before reviewing it, unlike Metacritic (or vice versa). ] (]) 19:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
====Summary of Dispute by VexVector====
To be clear, I do not, “support saying that 15.ai is under maintenance”. This is a misrepresentation of my involvement. I merely added a citation-needed tag to the claim that the site was abandoned, and reverted an edit which removed the tag without resolving the need for it. If the site is claimed to be abandoned, then it should be a claim which is cited or explained somehow. The page did not have any rationale for considering it abandoned. What is the cut-off point? Is there præexisting policy on this matter? An explanation is all I ask for, along with the explanation being included on the public page.


=== 15.ai discussion === === Dragon Age: The Veilguard discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>


To expand a bit a on the listing, I believe that at this point both {{reply to|Wikibenboy94|p=}} and I agree that there are no ] issues in the topline summary sentences removed by {{reply to|BMWF|p=}} in and agree on restoring them which BMWF opposes. I also agree with Wikibenboy94 on points 2-4 that they outlined in their summary of the dispute.
===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (15.ai)===
I am ready to act as the moderator for this content dispute. Please read ] and state whether you are willing to follow the ground rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise.


In terms of the review bomb sentence, I think the following compromise version should satisfy the request for clarity on Steam users (bold is the text added by BMWF) while restoring context (underlined) that was in the November consensus on this issue: {{xt|''Veilguard'' was also subject to ] on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "]". Some outlets noted that {{underline|while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative,}} the user reviews of ''Veilguard'' on ], '''which requires users to play the game before leaving a review''', have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove {{underline|offensive}} reviews}}. ] (]) 17:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
It appears that the main question is whether to characterize the web site as abandoned or defunct, or whether to characterize it as under maintenance. Is that correct? In Misplaced Pages, we report what ] have said, including about the (lack of) availability of the site. So my first question to the editors is whether they can refer to any ] that comment on the status of the web site. If so, please identify the source(s).


===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)===
The purpose of dispute resolution, including moderated discussion, is to improve the article. So my second question is whether there are any other portions or sections of the article that you want to change that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or any portions of the article that you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change.
I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two participants want moderated discussion. Please read ] and state that you agree to the rules (if you want moderated discussion). The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
] (]) 04:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 20:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


:Quick clarity question on DRN Rule A - my assumption is that the rule is to not edit war over the disputed content but updates/improvements in other sections are fine. This question occurred to me after the fact (I corrected a template in the awards table which is unrelated to the dispute but was a mistake I made). ] (]) 02:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:You are correct in what the main question is about the categorization of the website as either abandoned/defunct or under maintenance.
:Directly answering your first question, we were unable to find specifically reliable sources regarding the status of 15ai. We do have alledged sites made by 15, tweets that 15 had said about the status (and an implied release timeframe that has already passed), and the current usage of the domain 15ai under tf215ai, but I assume that these do not qualify as reliable sources.
:As for your second question, a new talk topic on the page asked whether the CMU Dictionary section of the page was necessary, although the topic is too new for any consensus to be formed yet.
:If any editors have information that contradicts my statement, please correct me. I may make mistakes by accident. ] (]) 05:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::I forgot to answer you on the first point, sorry. I will, to my best knowledge, try to follow the stated ground rules. Please let me know if I made a mistake though. ] (]) 05:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:i can follow the ground rules. i have nothing to add to thought 1915's summary. ] (]) 10:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::I personally very much think that 15.ai has definitely been abandoned and the article needs to be updated. It's not gotten any changes within the last few months and I haven't seen any updates about it. Thanks, ] (]) Celebrating 1000 Edits! {{smiley|awesome}} 11:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


===Zeroth statements by editors (15.ai)=== ====Clarification by Moderator (Dragon Age)====
I generally prefer to have the parties avoid editing any part of the article, at least until all of the parties agree on what the area of dispute is. Since the other editors have not yet stated what they think the issues are, I am not relaxing the rule against editing the article, except with regard to the change that ] is asking about, that was already made. In that case, the principle of ] applies to the change that has already been made. Leave the change in.
] (]) 05:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


===First statement by moderator (15.ai)=== ===Zeroth statements by editors (Dragon Age)===
I agree to DRN Rule A. As outlined , I would like to restore the topline summary sentences in the lead & reception section (ie. the sentences removed & ), restore other word changes as outlined by Wikibenboy94's in their points 2-4, & I would like use the above proposed compromise version of the review bomb prose. ] (]) 21:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
If ] do not say that the web site has been abandoned, we should not say that the web site has been abandoned, but we can state what the reliable sources report about the status of the web site. Stating that it has been abandoned would be ]. However, stating that it is under maintenance would also be ] unless that has been reported by a ].


===First statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)===
Is there any disagreement about any other content issue? Are there any continuing issues about how to report the status of the web site?
Do two editors want moderated discussion? The filing editor has said that they agree to ] and has made a statement about what they want to change in the article. Another editor made a statement at the beginning, but has not agreed to ]. If they agree to those rules, I will open moderated discussion, and we will try to work on the various differences. If they do not either agree to the rules or make some other statement, I will close this discussion as declined due to lack of response.
] (]) 23:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


Are there any other questions? ] (]) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:This goes in tandem with considering the site abandoned, but, the tense of the article seemed to be disputed. I placed it under past tense under the suggestion of the talk topics above me; the story of how that went is the same as considering the site abandoned.
:As there have been no reliable sources on both considering the site abandoned or under maintenance, I wonder how it should be classified under these circumstances. ] (]) 01:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, it's very hard to find an actual reference that would document that the site is abandoned. We might need to do a {{citation needed}} instead. Thanks, ] (]) Celebrating 1000 Edits! {{smiley|awesome}} 11:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I would be fine with this. ] (]) 00:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Nice. Anyone else up for {{citation needed}} in place of a reference? Thanks, ] (]) Celebrating 1000 Edits! {{smiley|awesome}} 00:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{cn}} with what? ] (]) 00:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Since it's hard to find a reference, it might just be easier to put a {{citation needed}} in place of it. Thanks, ] (]) Celebrating 1000 Edits! {{smiley|awesome}} 11:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::placing a {{cn}} next to "is" is a little silly. ] (]) 05:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::All I am saying is we just need to find some way to incorporate saying that the 15.ai platform has been abandoned, and write a {{citation needed}} at the end. I don't really care how it is placed, I guess it just needs to follow WP:MOS Thanks, ] (]) Celebrating 1000 Edits! {{smiley|awesome}} 11:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)


:I've pinged the two other editors in case they only watched this noticeboard for a week & haven't seen that a moderator opened the discussion. ] (]) 18:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
===First statements by editors (15.ai)===
::I have read and agree to DRN Rule A. ] (]) 20:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


===Second statement by moderator (15.ai)=== ===First statements by editors (Dragon Age)===
Is there agreement now that the web site should be reported as abandoned, and that a {{tl|citation needed}} note should be used for that statement? If so, do we have agreement, and is this issue resolved? If not, please state what the remaining disagreement is.
] (]) 16:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)


:I agree that reporting the site as abandoned and simply placing a *citation needed tag* is appropriate. I know of one editor who may oppose this decision, but said editor has not participated in any part of this dispute discussion yet. If I see that the majority of editors also share this sentiment, I feel that we could then talk about how to properly edit the site as abanoned and properly placing a *citation needed tag*. ] (]) 21:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::they’ll definitely oppose this decision, but i agree to this. ] (]) 05:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I can only think of one singular editor who may oppose this. May you please elaborate? ] (]) 15:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
::::] ] (]) 03:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Ok, I apologise for the confusion. Should we wait for their confirmation, or should something else be done? ] (]) 03:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::i'll notify them again, let's see if they answer. ] (]) 01:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Hi, Im the person who proposed the {{citation needed}} replacement. We could for example place in the text, like this:
:::::::<br>
:::::::As of ''date'', it is unknown if 15.ai is abandoned or not, as no activity has been seen in a long time. {{citation needed}}
:::::::(this is an example only)
::::::::in the event that it may not be suitable to just blatantly place a {{citation needed}}, To prove that this is abandoned, since we can't add original research as of WP:NOR, we might be able to use discussion threads as seen on Reddit and these other websites. I have provided the links to them below.
:::::::
::::::: <br>
:::::::
:::::::
:::::::
:::::::<br>
:::::::<br>
:::::::In my opinion, this one below might be the best as it is independent.You should still see the above references.
:::::::. I definitely think that a reliable source is needed, so here are some examples if the {{citation needed}} is not appropriate. Thanks, ] (]) Celebrating 1000 Edits! {{smiley|awesome}} 02:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I worry that the referenced sites may not seem reliable, but I might be wrong. I feel more comfortable with using the *citation needed tag*. ] (]) 22:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Got it. Keep me updated if we see any good references. Thanks, ] (]) Celebrating 1000 Edits! {{smiley|awesome}} 00:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Sorry if this is informal, but I believe that we should try to finalise how we should edit the Misplaced Pages page as we search for sources. I like your proposal of a citation needed tag, and it seems many do as well. How should we go about finalising a decision or making the proposal more concrete? ] (]) 21:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Before we close this, we also could use the {{verification needed}} tag instead of {{citation needed}} (just saying before we finalize) ] ] 00:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent|:::::::::::}}
RocketKnightX made a response on their talk page:
{{tpb|Okay. So, 15 said "I've been alerted that there appears to be a coordinated attack against my project by another service, with affiliated groups spreading rumors that I had abandoned 15.ai, or that I had placed it behind a paywall, or that I had killed myself, etc. I assure you that I am still the same stubborn person I was three years ago when I first launched my project – please don't believe these malicious lies. I'm doing the best I can, and I'll always continue to do so." They tried to mean that the project was not abandoned and is in under maintenance, but some people still not convinced due to waiting too long. The only reason why the project isn't up is that it needs to be perfect, as quality is more important than quantity. ] (]) 21:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)}}
] (]) 02:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)


===Second statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)===
:Responding to the response made by @]:
It appears that two editors have agreed to moderated discussion, but that they have mostly agreed with each other and disagreed with the third editor, who has not responded on this noticeboard. Their statements of what they want to change in the article are not entirely clear, at least not to me. So what I will do at this point is to ask each editor to prepare draft versions of the sections that they think should be changed. I don't see a discussion in the current text of the article about ], so that we can read a description of the review bombing.
:The website has not even a placeholder page and its subdomain (tf215) is being used for something completely unrelated. Although having absolutely no contact for 1.5 years is part of the reasoning, I feel that the subdomain usage should be a reason to consider.
:I appologise if this breaks formality, but saying "only reason" in the last sentence severely oversimplifies the complexity of things. The last clause does not seem to have a relation to the topic. I would also like to mention that 15 has lied before; 15 went onto Twitter before finishing the site despite saying otherwise (the Misplaced Pages page logo was 15's former profile picture).
:This is the responce to the suggestion by @]:
:As for the *verification needed tag*, I ask if linking the subdomain and 15's other unrelated projects would be sufficient as verification. I personally prefer the *citation needed tag*, as I feel that the main problem is the reliability of the aquired sources for WIkipedian standards. ] (]) 03:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::Alright! It seems that {{citation needed}} fits better.
::I also saw some other things:
::No source code in the website. At the moment, it's just a blank HTML page that has no actual content. the tf2dot15dotai website seems to be something related to a platform named "sourcebans", so it definitely isn't related to 15.ai and might just be the ban page of a team fortress two server. ] ] 11:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Wait a minute, I see this in the article:
:::In September 2022, a year after its last stable release, 15.ai was temporarily taken down in preparation for a future update. As of October 2024, the website is still offline, with 15's most recent post being dated February 2023.
:::Does this already count as "abandoned?" it has a reference, too.
:::Due to the recent posts by 15, we might have to instead write in the article
:::"Although there is supposedly supposed to be an update, due to the long time period, it is usually thought that 15.ai is abandoned.{{citation needed}}". We don't have to put it in the way I just put it- just an example. Thanks, ] ] 11:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I feel that it could if used alongside another tweet 15 said regarding an implied timeframe. But for "it is usually thought" in the text you suggested, I could place a couple user-generated content with this sentiment to back this statement up. I simply worry if citing user-generated content for opinions is considered reliable in terms of the types of citations that should be done. ] (]) 13:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I have no problem with the tweet idea either, however it might be hard to find a ''notable'' one. ] ] 14:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I mean, very little independent sources regarding 15 are currently going around besides Tweets, the domains, and the sources you showed. This thread is getting quite long, so I plan on using the Editor Statement space to propose how the page should be edited once I have time. ] (]) 20:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)


I will comment that the article is no longer fully protected. The full protection expired, and the article is now semi-protected. However, I have asked that the editors in this dispute not edit the article while we are discussing its improvement.
===Second statements by editors (15.ai)===
I, Thought 1915, would like to propose the following:<br>
The article will be in the past tense since the website currently has no content. The state will be placed as abandoned with the {{citation needed}} tag added at the end, since most of the sources that prove this are either original research or not reliable yet. The {{citation needed}} tag will only be temporary until a reliable source proving it can be found.
<br>
For context behind stating this, I propose directly citing user sentiments as the reason and a lack of any response (this can include Tweets mentioning 15ai, the possible user threads shown, and the other projects being worked on.) As additional context, the subdomain and the side projects can be used as context and cited.
<br>
I apologize if this seems like a stretch, but I hope this proposal can help bring a consensus. I would also like to mention that an editor on one of the disputed page's ] made a very good point on how 15's work on other projects is good proof that the site is abandoned. If it would be possible to use the side projects as citations for the abandonment please tell me.
<br>
I also attempted to integrate all of the suggestions by the volunteer and other editors when creating this proposal, so please tell me if you have problems with the proposal or if you would like changes to it.
<br>I hope for the best as ] (]) 23:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)


I don't understand what the ] issue is, and I don't want to read through the history and previous discussion to determine what the ] issue is. So please state more specifically what the ] issue is if you want it considered, or let me infer it from the rewritten sections, or I might ignore it, which might be what you want. It seems that the two editors who have responded do not see a ] issue, so it can be disregarded if it isn't mentioned and the third editor doesn't describe it.
:'''This message is a copy of the message I sent to the moderator down below.'''
:: Instead of the direct statement of "the site is abandoned" We should take the idea of trying to say a text that I said earlier.
:: Personally, I think this text below shows that 15.ai may not be ''fully abandoned'', but it is just thought by the community.
::
:: Although there is supposedly an update coming, due to the long time period, it is usually thought that 15.ai is abandoned.<sup>]'']</sup>
::
:: This text shows how 15.ai may still be alive but it is just thought that it is abandoned.
:] ] 11:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)


Please provide your rewritten sections.
===Third statement by moderator (15.ai)===
The filing editor has been blocked indefinitely. However, there are remaining editors who originally said that the site was abandoned, and who said that it was under maintenance. So we can continue to work toward a version of the article that states that the site is abandoned, but is marked with a {{tl|citation needed}} tag, or toward some similar compromise.


Are there any specific questions about how to revise the article? Are there any other questions?
] (]) 02:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


===Second statements by editors (Dragon Age)===
:Instead of the direct statement of "the site is abandoned" We should take the idea of trying to say a text that I said earlier.
Proposed text:
:Personally, I think this text below shows that 15.ai may not be ''fully abandoned'', but it is just thought by the community.
;Lead
:<br>
''Dragon Age: The Veilguard'' released for ], ], and ] on October 31, 2024. {{strikethrough|After release ''Dragon Age: The Veilguard'' topped Steam charts and broke BioWare's concurrent player record.}} The game received generally positive reviews from critics, '''who praised its cast, representation of ] characters, graphics, and level design, but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, and combat'''. It was nominated for Game of the Year at the ] and Innovation in Accessibility at ].
:Although there is supposedly an update coming, due to the long time period, it is usually thought that 15.ai is abandoned.<sup>]'']</sup>
;Reception
:<br>
¶1 ''Dragon Age: The Veilguard'' received "generally favorable" reviews from critics {{strikethrough|for its Windows, Xbox Series X/S, and PlayStation 5 versions}} according to the ] website ].<ref name="MC XSXS Reviews">{{cite web |url=https://www.metacritic.com/game/dragon-age-the-veilguard/critic-reviews/?platform=xbox-series-x |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard (Xbox Series X Critic Reviews) |website=] |access-date=December 4, 2024}}</ref> ] determined that 68% of critics recommended the game.<ref name="OC Reviews">{{cite web |url=https://opencritic.com/game/17037/dragon-age-the-veilguard |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard Reviews |website=] |access-date=November 12, 2024}}</ref> ''Veilguard'' was subject to ] on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "]". '''{{underline|Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative}}''', the user reviews of ''Veilguard'' on ], '''which requires users to play the game before leaving a review''', have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove '''offensive reviews'''.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-11-05 |title=Metacritic responds after Dragon Age: The Veilguard review bombing |url=https://www.eurogamer.net/metacritic-responds-after-dragon-age-the-veilguard-review-bombing |access-date=2024-11-06 |work=Eurogamer.net |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-11-05 |title=Dragon Age The Veilguard is getting review bombed, and now Metacritic has something to say |url=https://www.pcgamesn.com/dragon-age-the-veilguard/metacritic-respond-review-bomb |access-date=2024-11-06 |website=PCGamesN |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Watson |first=Philip |date=2024-11-05 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard's Poor Review Bombing Leads To Metacritic Response |url=https://www.cgmagonline.com/news/dragon-age-the-veilguard-review-bombing/ |access-date=2024-11-06 |website=] |language=en-CA}}</ref>
:This text shows how 15.ai may still be alive but it is just thought that it is abandoned. ] ] 11:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::This is a fair compromise that I am fine with and that I feel that others would be fine with as well. I cannot speak for others however, so if anybody objects this, please say so.
::For the "it is usually thought...." bit of the compromise, I assume that citing user-generated content showing the sentiment was decided against. Please correct me if I am wrong. ] (]) 12:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Alright! When do you think we should finalize the change ''if no one objects'' ] ] 12:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I would say the same day that one of the files on the page deletes itself for non-fair use (24 October, 2024). For confirmation, keep present tense, and add small section regarding community sense of abandonment, correct? ] (]) 13:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I feel this would be the best way forward. ] (]) 00:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)


{{collapse top|Reception ¶2 is not under dispute but here for additional context if needed.}}
===Third statements by editors (15.ai)===
¶2 Hayes Madsen of '']'' called ''Veilguard'' a "fresh start for the franchise" with the game "practically a soft reset".<ref name=":2">{{Cite magazine |last=Madsen |first=Hayes |date=2024-10-28 |title='Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Is a Return to Form for a Beloved RPG Franchise |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/rs-gaming/dragon-age-the-veilguard-review-1235144960/ |access-date=2024-10-29 |magazine=Rolling Stone |language=en-US}}</ref> Leana Hafer for '']'' similarly commented that the "story feels like both a send-off and a soft reboot, in a way, which was paradoxically a bit refreshing and disappointing at the same time". She also found it "cool" that the Inquisitor returns as "a fairly important character".<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Hafer |first=Leana |date=2024-10-28 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard Review |url=https://www.ign.com/articles/dragon-age-the-veilguard-review |access-date=2024-10-29 |website=] |language=en}}</ref> Andy Bickerton of ] viewed the game as a "well-executed ]". However, he called the decision to not include prior player narrative choices a "letdown", noting that "it's easy to see how this squandered potential, along with the tonal inconsistencies, could have arisen out of ''Veilguard''{{'}}s near-decade of troubled production".<ref name=":11">{{Cite news |last=Bickerton |first=Andy |date=October 28, 2024 |title=Tonally inconsistent 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' is still BioWare's best action game |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s1-5165587/dragon-age-veilguard-review-story-tone |access-date=November 29, 2024 |work=]}}</ref> Lauren Morton of ''PC Gamer'' thought a downside of perceived streamlining and eliminating the "most common RPG frictions" is that it "can feel more action adventure than ] at moments".<ref name="PCGUS Morton rev">{{cite web |last=Morton |first=Lauren |date=October 28, 2024 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard review |url=https://www.pcgamer.com/games/dragon-age/dragon-age-the-veilguard-review/ |access-date=October 28, 2024 |website=]}}</ref>
{{collapse bottom}}


¶3 '''Critics were mixed on the game's story.''' Matt Purslow from ''IGN'' '''thought that''' ''Veilguard'' was "at war with itself", as he felt that the game was not interested in exploring the franchise's past despite being its first direct sequel, and that the game sidelined major characters such as Solas and Varric.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ign.com/articles/dragon-age-the-veilguard-is-at-war-with-itself|title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard Is at War With Itself|first=Matt|last=Purslow|work=]|date=November 9, 2024|accessdate=November 10, 2024}}</ref> Malindy Hetfeld of '']'' '''criticized''' the "surprisingly mediocre" writing in ''Veilguard'', describing the protagonist Rook as more of a witty observer than a "person with opinions".<ref name="Guardian review">{{cite web |last=Hetfeld |first=Malindy |date=October 28, 2024 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard review — a good RPG, but an underwhelming Dragon Age game |url=https://www.theguardian.com/games/2024/oct/28/dragon-age-the-veilguard-review-bioware-electronic-arts |access-date=October 28, 2024 |website=]}}</ref> She also found the "comically evil" new villainous gods disappointing compared to the more "compelling" Solas.<ref name="Guardian review" /> Hafer opined that ''Veilguard'' has "weird" pacing, and that the overaching plot "is nothing particularly outstanding in its overall structure", with the only interesting factor being Solas.<ref name=":1" /> Madsen argued that Solas was "a secondary protagonist", with the game focusing on his choices, their impact, "and how your journey as Rook mirrors" his journey.<ref name=":2" /> Ash Parrish of '']'' appreciated how Solas' arc subverted her desire to kill him despite longstanding animosity; she praised BioWare for crafting "his story arc in a way that didn't soften his actions as villain backstories typically do, but in a way that I felt compelled to make a different choice".<ref name="Verge full review">{{Cite web |last=Parrish |first=Ash |date=2024-11-28 |title=The hardest part of Dragon Age: The Veilguard is making a choice |url=https://www.theverge.com/24307786/dragon-age-the-veilguard-full-review |access-date=2024-11-29 |website=The Verge |language=en}}</ref> Reviewers were divided over how consequential player choices were to the narrative,<ref name="Verge early review">{{Cite web |last=Parrish |first=Ash |date=2024-10-28 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard starts slow but strong |url=https://www.theverge.com/24281631/dragon-age-the-veilguard-early-review-ps5-xbox-pc |access-date=2024-10-30 |website=The Verge |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2" /><ref name="Guardian review" /><ref name="PCGUS Morton rev"/><ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Hashimoto |first=Kazuma |date=2024-10-28 |title=I Played 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' and Got Myself Stuck in a Gay Love Triangle |url=https://www.them.us/story/dragon-age-the-veilguard-lgbtq-romance-options-essay-lucanis-davrin |access-date=2024-11-29 |website=Them |language=en-US}}</ref> with some finding major decisions "few and far between".<ref name="Guardian review" /><ref name=":2" />
===Fourth statement by moderator (15.ai)===
The discussion between the editors about how to word the article seems to be constructive. At the start of this moderated discussion, I said not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, and that rule has been ignored, but has been ignored usefully, so I am suspending that rule. Please continue the discussion.
] (]) 23:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)


{{collapse top|The rest of the reception section for context on lead summary. While it uses similar summary style sentences as above (see bolded text), it is not under dispute.}}
¶4 Madsen praised ''Veilguard'' for its attention to detail when showcasing the player's iteration of Rook and the game's companions, calling the characters "wonderfully written and well integrated into the plot".<ref name=":2" /> Todd Harper of '']'' emphasized the companions as the heart of the game, noting that they were "weird and idiosyncratic in the best ways".<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Harper |first=Todd |date=2024-10-28 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the friend group simulator we've been waiting for |url=https://www.polygon.com/review/470712/review-dragon-age-the-veilguard-ps5-xbox-pc |access-date=2024-10-30 |website=Polygon |language=en-US}}</ref> Kazuma Hashimoto of '']'' commented that at a surface level companions feel like "fantasy clichés and tropes", but with earned trust reveal "mundane moments" that make them feel closer to "normal people"; he also praised both the romance and non-romance options for interacting with companions.<ref name=":3"/> Hafer appreciated that companions are each "stars of their own story" with "complex, memorable, likable, distinct personalities", but was disappointed that in combat they felt more like extensions of the player character.<ref name=":1" /> Parrish enjoyed the "fun banter" of companions, and praised the romance options in ''Veilguard'', highlighting that unlike previous ''Dragon Age'' games, it explicitly indicates when the player becomes locked into a romance path.<ref name="Verge full review" /> Conversely, Oliver Brandt of '']'' viewed the choice to make all companions romanceable regardless of player gender expression as "a small step back" from other ''Dragon Age'' games.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web |last=Brandt |first=Oliver |date=2024-10-31 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the first triple-A game to handle gender identity the right way |url=https://www.si.com/videogames/features/dragon-age-the-veilguard-taash-gender-identity |access-date=2024-11-29 |website=] |language=en-US}}</ref> Harvey Randall of ''PC Gamer'' highlighted a lack of nuance in Rook's romantic dialogue if a player chooses to discuss Rook's gender identity.<ref name=":9" /> Morton thought companions lacked nuance and individual characterizations,<ref name="PCGUS Morton companions rev" /> noting that "good people don't make great characters".<ref name="PCGUS Morton rev" /> She further criticized the lack of a "functional mechanism for disapproval" and interpersonal group conflicts.<ref name="PCGUS Morton companions rev">{{Cite news |last=Morton |first=Lauren |date=2024-11-15 |title=The Veilguard is the first Dragon Age game where my companions don't care enough about anything to argue with me |url=https://www.pcgamer.com/games/dragon-age/the-veilguard-is-the-first-dragon-age-game-where-my-companions-dont-care-enough-about-anything-to-argue-with-me/ |access-date=2024-11-29 |work=PC Gamer |language=en}}</ref>


¶5 '''''Veilguard'' generally received praise for its inclusive ] and representation of ] and ] characters.'''<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":14">{{Cite web |last=Mora |first=Alyssa |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard Preview: BioWare Finally Nails The Character Creator I've Always Wanted |url=https://www.ign.com/articles/dragon-age-the-veilguard-preview-bioware-finally-nails-the-character-creator-ive-always-wanted |access-date=November 30, 2024 |website=IGN |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":10">{{Cite web |last=Bea |first=Robin |date=2024-11-06 |title='Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Makes Me Feel Seen As a Trans Player, But Still Disappointed |url=https://www.inverse.com/gaming/dragon-age-veilguard-trans-characters |access-date=2024-11-29 |website=Inverse |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":12">{{Cite web |last=Henley |first=Stacey |date=2024-11-06 |title=Why Dragon Age: The Veilguard Uses The Term 'Non-Binary' |url=https://www.thegamer.com/dragon-age-the-veilguard-non-binary-modern-immersion-breaking/ |access-date=2024-11-29 |website=TheGamer |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Puc |first=Samantha |date=2024-11-03 |title=This 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' companion's story ruined me in the best way |url=https://www.themarysue.com/this-dragon-age-the-veilguard-companions-story-ruined-me-in-the-best-way/ |access-date=2024-11-29 |website=The Mary Sue}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Marshall |first=Cass |date=2024-11-01 |title=How role-playing a trans or nonbinary Rook works in Dragon Age: The Veilguard |url=https://www.polygon.com/gaming/472513/dragon-age-veilguard-trans-nonbinary-identity-role-play |access-date=2024-11-30 |website=Polygon |language=en-US}}</ref> Alyssa Mora of ''IGN'' emphasized the character creator's "body diversity" where "the options feel almost endless".<ref name=":14" /> Both Robin Bea of '']'' and Brandt commended Taash's story arc,<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":10" /> with Brandt noting while BioWare has previously "touched on queer stories", ''Vanguard'' "goes one step further, unashamedly and unabashedly calling one of its most compelling characters nonbinary".<ref name=":8" /> Bea acknowledged the "smart writing" in ''Veilguard'' in addressing transgender representation. However, she critiqued the use of a ] narrative as "low-hanging fruit", and thought Rook's gender identity was not fully explored beyond Taash's storyline and so did not "always feel like a fully-actualized trans character".<ref name=":10" /> Stacey Henley of '']'' appreciated the deliberate use of modern language in Taash's story in comparison to ''Inquisition''{{'s}} ], though noted the language has been contentious with audiences as potentially "immersion breaking".<ref name=":12" /> Randall was more critical, noting how ''Veilguard'' "both failed and succeeded" in the narrative aspects focused on non-binary characters, and that the overall "scattershot, clumsy, and unpolished" writing impacts the "use of queer language in a fantasy context".<ref name=":9">{{Cite news |last=Randall |first=Harvey |date=2024-11-13 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard's leap forward in trans inclusion comes from a heartfelt place, but its problems left me feeling frustrated, angry, and tired |url=https://www.pcgamer.com/games/dragon-age/dragon-age-the-veilguards-leap-forward-in-trans-inclusion-comes-from-a-heartfelt-place-but-its-problems-left-me-feeling-frustrated-angry-and-tired/ |access-date=2024-11-29 |work=PC Gamer |language=en}}</ref> They found the lack of a fictional ] connecting the word to the cultures of Thedas problematic, reflecting wider story issues as the game seems "barely interested in the politics of its own setting".<ref name=":9" />
===Fourth statements by editors (15.ai)===
I agree to the rules that were proposed at the onset. I had been invited to participate in this DRN by one of the involved editors due to my activity on other sections of the page, so I just want to state something real quick. I initially did not want to get involved in this case, but this feels to me like a very clear case of ] from the single opponent to declaring the site abandoned. The creator of the project has demonstrably worked on other projects, the site has been down for over a year, and the site is excluded from being archived, so we cannot even direct readers of the encyclopedia to an archived version of the site. Furthermore, the domain is being used to host a TF2 server. We do not need "citation needed" tags to state the obvious. It is self-evident per ] {{tq|When adding a tag, ask yourself:... Is the knowledge so self-evident that it really does not need to be cited at all?}}. If the owner magically returns and the project comes to life again, then it can be changed just as easily from abandoned. Abandoned things can be reclaimed, afterall. But also, I invite editors to ask yourselves ''why'' this even matters when per ] the current_status tag is ''optional''. If you all do not agree that a citation needed tag isn't needed because it is self-evident that the website is abandoned, then I propose instead to ''just remove current status entirely'' rather than throw "Citation Needed" in the infobox and be done with the problem. <ins>See also the incredibly relevant ] {{tq|References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes... or if the information is obvious}}.</ins> --<b>]</b> 00:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)


¶6 '''Critics enjoyed ''Veilguard''{{'}}s graphics and level design but were divided on the game's combat.''' Bickerton felt that ''Veilguard''{{'}}s strongest feature was its action gameplay, writing "mastering combat and party composition is a thoroughly rewarding experience from start to finish".<ref name=":11" /> He also highlighted the game's "accessibility and difficulty settings" as being welcoming for more casual players.<ref name=":11" /> Hetfeld viewed ''Veilguard''{{'}}s combat as functional but repetitive, without "much room for strategy", and similar to numerous other games.<ref name="Guardian review" /> Hafer called the boss fights the highlight of combat.<ref name=":1" /> Parrish praised the combo system, the new elemental effects on weapons, and the ability for player mages to switch between melee and ranged for a "kinetic, almost chaotic energy". However, she critiqued the length of encounters from the "wave after wave of tanky enemies with multiple health bars".<ref name="Verge full review" /> Harper thought the combat was "hit or miss", and that the combo system was less complex than ''Inquisition'' and the ''Mass Effect'' games.<ref name=":4" /> Hafer stated that the game has "visual splendor",<ref name=":1" /> and Harper called it "graphically gorgeous".<ref name=":4" /> Parrish opined that the "companions and environments are arresting in their design".<ref name="Verge early review" /> Bickerton thought the level design was an improvement on ''Inquisition''{{'}}s "bland open zones", and praised side quests for their depth and the rewarding of exploration with "useful loot and impactful plot points".<ref name=":11" /> Morton viewed each area's "incredible visual design" as a standout feature of ''Veilguard''. She found it was better off for removing ''Inquisition''{{'}}s "giant zones" and having "more constrained maps of coiled corridors and clearings".<ref name="PCGUS Morton rev" />
:If I understoof you correctly, your suggestion was to simply remove that "Current Status" part from the infobox, correct? I'd be fine with that.
{{Reflist-talk}}
:You also mentioned Pedantry for the citation of abanonment. Since most of the editors have seemingly been fine with the origninal edit I preformed before (with the exception of the one you claim to do Pedantry), I honestly forgot why a dispute discussion occured.
{{collapse bottom}}
:I appologize for the confusion, but @] and @], please remind me what this dispute was about, if not about the state of the site, which already is considered clear by many of the editors and talk page topics. Because I feel that I am missing something, I will create a sanbox in my user page of ]. I saw this method used in the other dispute resolutions and feel that this method will allow me to be specific in my questions and concerns without me faultering over what words to say. Please tell me if there are any problems with my approach in sharing my confusion. ] (]) 23:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::Here is what the description says:
::<br>
::15.ai is an ai text-to-speech program that has been down for ~19 months. the article said that 15.ai was under maintenance until thought 1915 , and rocketknightx . i and rocketknightx edit warred over this, and i apologize for that.
::<br>
::Basically, this is talking about whether or not 15.Ai is abandoned as well as if this should be incorporated into the text.
::Thank you, ] ] 00:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::I am referring to the fact that editor Rocketknightx has used language implying a personal dislike of the notion that the site is abandoned, followed by insistence in a citation of some sort to prove the site was abandoned. ] defines pedantry as {{tq|Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material '''''simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification'''''}} Adding emphasis. Given statements like {{special:diff/1249204103}} this entire dispute seems to stem from the fact that one editor feels passionately that the project isn't abandoned, and potentially has some sort of personal stake in it {{tq|Something tells me 15 will make the project not just perfect, but something new and interesting}} isn't enough to refute the plainly obvious fact ''that the site is abandoned''.
::{{tq|If I understoof you correctly, your suggestion was to simply remove that "Current Status" part from the infobox, correct? I'd be fine with that.}}
::As alternative to including "citation needed", yes, just removing "Current Status" from the infobox is a better choice since we are generally recommended against including citations in infboxes per ], and there is no requirement that the infobox has "current status". The dispute began over edit warring over the infobox, which was changed from "Under Maintenance" to "Abandoned. The Edit Warring party on one side has been indeffed for a different offense, and the other edit warring party hasn't participated in this dispute resolution in 3 days now.
::Frankly, the consensus seems to be that the site is obviously abandoned, and since it is self-evident there isn't a need for a citation. <ins>Don't get me wrong, the compromise you all worked out is a great example of how things should work, but it might be an entirely unnecessary compromise at this point.</ins> <b>]</b> 01:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I can tell you that many of the other editors feel the same way about the user mentioned. I feel a bit conflicted about the compromise personally as well; neither side that caused the original dispute can (for one blocked editor's case) or had (in the one you mentioned by name) given explicitly agreement on the compromise to an extent I can properly feel that sentiments over the page are properly solved, and one editor's (the one mentioned by name) only interaction with the dispute has been through the user statement, saying things that had already been said before in the talk topic pages.
:::In terms of what I would have personally preferred to do, I would have done what the talk pages suggested: call the site abandoned and place it into past tense (but that is what caused the edit war). ] (]) 02:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::{{Agree}} I personally feel the same way about this user ] ] 11:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|I would have done what the talk pages suggested: call the site abandoned and place it into past tense (but that is what caused the edit war)}}
::::At which point that becomes a user conduct issue which can be taken up at the relevant edit warring noticeboard. It can also be made note of that dispute resolution has been attempted, and while voluntary, the user in question didn't participate in a meaningful manner. That said, the edit war took place between an indeffed user and a user who isn't participating in the DRN. I don't think we should be making consensus-altering choices on the basis of appeasement to a single party just because they declare ] and now we're concerned they'll edit war over it, is my general point. If you want to double-down on whether or not there is a consensus, we could attempt to run an RfC on the question of whether to depict the site as abandoned or under maintenance, but it feels like that would just be a waste of editor time when there's a single person who opposed the change. <b>]</b> 22:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Agree|I agree!}} The complete removal of the area might help, however there are a few eye-catching things in the article that might conflict with the article
:::<br>
:::In September 2022, a year after its last stable release, 15.ai was temporarily taken down in preparation for a future update. As of October 2024, the website is still offline, with 15's most recent post being dated February 2023.
:::<br>
:::This text may be malformed and shaped into ''abandoned'' just like the infobox
:::<br>
:::I also propose the idea of saying that the ''community'' might think that it is abandoned in some form of footnote or side text. ] ] 11:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I would prefer side text if this option is done, as footnotes are generally rare in Misplaced Pages articles and I believe that there is enough text and information regarding the community's sentiment that a side text could be feasibly done.
::::An example of how the side text could go is as follows (taken ]):
::::After 1.5 years of waiting, much of the community has felt that 15 had abandoned the project due to a lack of contact, 15's usage of the domain for other projects , and working on other activities. The community surrounding this projects believes it to be abandoned. ] (]) 13:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::the tf2 15.ai site seems to be down? this seems to be merely a Team fortress two server management platform. (unless im wrong) ] ] 14:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Not wanting to get into potentially outing territory, but the TF2 Server is very much alive. The aforementioned tf2 URL shows activity related to the TF2 server in question and serves as a backend for logging in, banning users, and appealing bans. The TF2 server which it seemingly manages is /mlp/ - Pony on TF2. I agree that the body text should represent that the community think it is abandoned. <b>]</b> 22:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{Agree|Agreed}} Ah, seemed that it was probably my network. ] ] 22:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::About 20 hours remain before the dispute resolution finalisations occur. Are there any closing statements that anybody would like to make before a green light to apply the dispute compromise occurs? ] (]) 03:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Alright, just double checking. We are removing "current status" from the infobox and then adding a footnote that says the community thinks that 15.ai is abandoned? <span class="nowrap">( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)</span><!-- Template:Lenny --> ] ] 11:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I thought that we would be doing side text (basically a small section added). Besides that, correct. ] (]) 12:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::A footnote is when you have a small mark like a here and a note at the bottom if i'm right at least for wikipedia. Do you want a footnote or a small section added? <span class="nowrap">( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)</span><!-- Template:Lenny --> ] ] 12:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I would prefer a small section. ] (]) 13:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Would you mind placing one on my talk page just to see how we can format it into the text? Also, is this {{Accepted}} by everyone? Thanks, <span class="nowrap">( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)</span><!-- Template:Lenny --> ] ] 13:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It appears that the dispute is close to concluding. Shall we begin applying the resolution from this dispute onto the article? (The ongoing article reassessment unrelated to this dispute may make it take longer, but it we agree to begin applying the dispute resolution, I will try to work with the reassessment person so that we can edit while or before/after/during a pause of the reassessment.) ] (]) 01:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I'm fine with it. <b>]</b> 05:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Yeah. It really seems that this works.
:::::::::::::::Conclusion:
:::::::::::::::1. Remove current status from infobox
:::::::::::::::2. Add small section of how it is thought that the 15.ai website is abandoned. <span class="nowrap">( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)</span><!-- Template:Lenny --> ] ] 11:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I am unsure how it is communicated to the original moderator that a conclusion has been reached and that we are ready to apply the conclusion edits, but I will try to work things out with the reassessment, as editing an article during an article reassessment may cause problems. I am glad that the problem has been solved. ] (]) 12:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::@] We are happy to inform that we have reached a conclusion on how to resolve the 15.ai dispute. Please help us finalize on how to finally conclude/finalize. <span class="nowrap">( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)</span><!-- Template:Lenny --> ] ] 12:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
===Fifth statement by moderator (15.ai)===
There was constructive discussion between the editors, and they have informed me that they have reached an agreement. At this point, I am lifting the rule against editing the article. Please edit the article to reflect the agreement that has been reached. Once the article has been edited, this case will be closed as resolved.
] (]) 17:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


In the lead and reception ¶1/¶3, I bolded prose which I think should be included & did strikethroughs on what I think should be removed. The lead & reception ¶3 summary sentences were removed for being synth although I disagree with that assessment. It would be helpful to have an outside opinion review them. Additionally, reception ¶1 (in bold & underline) includes the review bomb sentence that was part of the original November consensus that BMWF argued against; when raising synth concerns, they removed it again. I believe it adds important context as news outlets contrasted the two platforms in articles focused on what was occurring at Metacritic (ie. the negative user reviews on Metacritic were very different from the user reviews on Steam). ] (]) 22:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:I will now perform the change into the article. Thank you. <span class="nowrap">( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)</span><!-- Template:Lenny --> ] ] 17:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::@] thing just happened- do we need a reference for the text I am about to add?
::I will not edit this article until I get a reply for verifiability reasons. <span class="nowrap">( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)</span><!-- Template:Lenny --> ] ] 17:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I do not believe so, but if one is needed, we can use the links that you have sent earlier in this dispute or some of the replies used in 15's twitter page. ] (]) 20:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I will now edit the article. No references added.
::::Removing: Current Status.
::::Adding text:
:::: After 1.5 years of waiting, much of the community has felt that 15 had abandoned the project due to a lack of contact, 15's usage of the domain for other projects, and working on other activities. <span class="nowrap">( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)</span><!-- Template:Lenny --> ] ] 21:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Okay. All is well. ] (]) 22:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Great to see we have
::::::{{Resolved mark}} this with an {{Accepted}} solution. {{Great}} work, {{Thank}} for all of your work, Everything is {{Implemented}} in the article now. <span class="nowrap">( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)</span><!-- Template:Lenny --> ] ] 00:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::The edit was just reverted for violating WP:NPOV. Aw man. What should we do?? <span class="nowrap">( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)</span><!-- Template:Lenny --> ] ] 11:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The edit clearly violates ], more specifically ], specifically "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". Furthermore, there is no citation that supports the edit, so its inclusion is not appropriate for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)


I fully support all the proposed changes Sariel Xilo has outlined above and have no further issues to raise, so a draft version from me will be redundant. ] (]) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
===Fifth statements by editors (15.ai)===


===Third statement by moderator (Dragon Age)===
== Tuner (radio) ==
The two editors who have responded to my request to provide a draft of changes to the article are in agreement on revised language. The other editor has not commented because they have not edited in the past week. I will suspend the rule against editing the article to allow the edits for which there is a rough local consensus to be made. If there is no objection to the edits within a few days, I will close this case as resolved. If there is any objection, we will resume discussion, but will leave the revised edits in place.


Are there any questions?
{{DR case status|open}}
] (]) 04:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- ] 20:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1730923454}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->

{{drn filing editor|Andrevan|20:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:Thanks for taking a look at the draft. Just to confirm, I should go ahead and implement the above in the article? ] (]) 04:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

===Third statements by editors (Dragon Age)===

== Autism ==

{{DR case status}}
<!-- ] 15:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1737128771}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Oolong|15:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 285: Line 156:


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Tuner (radio)}} * {{pagelinks|Autism}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Andrevan}} * {{User|Oolong}}
* {{User|Kvng}} * {{User|Димитрий Улянов Иванов}}
* {{User|Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr}} * {{User|Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan}}
* {{User|HarmonyA8}}
* {{User|TempusTacet}}
* {{User|WhatamIdoing}}
* {{User|FactOrOpinion}}
* {{User|2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0}}
* {{User|GreenMeansGo}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


Autism, in the wider world, is subject to a very deep disagreement about what it is, and what it means for society.
Are ] and other images appropriate to illustrate the progress and development of tuners over time and their varying design considerations?


On Misplaced Pages, this schism (or paradigm shift) is manifesting in an interesting way, because the root of the disagreement is essentially about the degree to which it is correct or helpful to view autism as a medical issue - a disorder - at all.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>


Misplaced Pages has quite detailed guidelines for what to do ''within'' medicine, or ''outside'' of medicine, but it is less clear what to do when the dispute is about ''whether'' something is best thought of as a health issue, and/or something else (for example: a different way of thinking and experiencing the world, a disability, an identity etc.) There are many implications for this distinction, including (to some extent) what we include and (strictly) what counts as a reliable source for any particular piece of information. Many scientists have taken various positions on the issue of neurodiversity, as have autistic and other neurodivergent people, practitioners, family members and writers (all of these overlap greatly). The concept has greatly risen in prominence in recent years.
]


This underlying dispute manifests in many different ways, across many autism-related articles, often giving rise to tensions, and incredulity on more than one side, when people refuse to accept things that apparently seem obvious to the other side. These go back many years, but have reached a relatively heated pitch in recent weeks, with a number of editors making efforts to change the main autism entry in various ways.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>


A major point of contention is around systemic bias, relating to what I would call testimonial injustice. Who should be listened to, when it comes to what people should be reading about autism? What exactly should we balancing when we weigh viewpoints "in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources"?
Users are arguing policy that doesn't exist or doesn't apply. I am trying to improve the article and these editors are throwing weight around without a sane rational basis to remove good faith improvements.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
==== Summary of dispute by Kvng ====
] is clear that these are generally undesirable. {{u|Andrevan}} claims that the gallery documents the development of tuners but I don't immediately get that from the pictures or captions. If we're going to try to tell that story, we need improvements but I'm not convinced telling this story is important and may introduce an ] issue. There is already a Commons link where these images can be perused by readers. ~] (]) 20:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)


]
==== Summary of dispute by Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr ====
]
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
]
{{u|Andrevan}} seems to be unaware of consensus guidelines on image use in articles,in this case adding 10 redundant images of radio tuner face-plates, some scattered across unrelated sections. Trying to explan that Misplaced Pages is not a repository of images and that they should have MOS:PERTINENCE, be placed in context and against descriptive text, and be readable at thumbnail resulted in WP:ICANTHEARYOU on the part of Andrevan and reverts of any attempted improvement . ] (]) 22:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
]
]]
Related: ]


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
=== Tuner (radio) discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>


There are tensions and disagreements for which the resolution is not obvious, and neither is the ''route'' to a resolution; much of this has run in circles around what different sources do or do not demonstrate, and which Misplaced Pages guidelines apply, where, and how. There has also some agressive argumentation and editing which seems unhelpful. Outside input on how to work towards a balanced conclusion - conceivably even something like a consensus - could be helpful.


==== Summary of dispute by Димитрий Улянов Иванов ====
===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Tuner)===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
I am ready to try to act as the moderator for discussion of this content dispute. Please read ]. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion, as of any dispute resolution procedure, is to improve the article (not to address the conduct of the editors). Please state that you agree to follow the rules for the discussion. It appears that the main issue, or maybe the only issue, has to do with images. It seems that one editor wants to include a large number of images in the article, and two other editors disagree with the inclusion of the images. The editors have already referred to ] and in particular ], but please read it again. ] (]) 19:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The central tension in the dispute revolves around how autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterised and the prominence given to this characterisation. Some editors have argued for either reducing, minimising, or entirely removing references to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity.


This proposed reframing of the article stands in stark contrast to the scientific consensus around the world. As regards the scientific consensus, the validity and relevance of the terminology for ASD has been established by standardised diagnostic criteria (e.g., the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and American Psychological Association's DSM-5), the developers of evidence-based national guidelines (e.g., the UK National Institute for Health & Care Excellence and the European Society for Child & Adolescent Psychiatry), and consensus statements endorsing these guidelines (e.g. IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders).
My first question is: Is there an issue about the inclusion of certain images in the article?
This is further substantiated by other peer-reviewed, secondary sources such as systematic reviews. For further details, see ].


Since the article pertains to health where readers may rely on its information to make health-related decisions, restricting these high-quality references can have profound repercussions. Some editors have cited a series of blog posts and advocacy papers as sources supporting the notion that a neurodiversity-only perspective, which decouples ASD from these terms, is more, or at least comparably, appropriate for the article because of its publicity and acceptance amongst a subset of autistic advocates. However, it has been argued that relying on these sources is problematic for several reasons. First, Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines consider peer-reviewed sources as the most reliable when available; that blog posts are generally discouraged; and that it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is considered factual or pseudoscience. Second, while some advocacy sources are peer-reviewed, they are usually advocating for a future change that is not currently established. The dispute has since increasingly been over how Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines can be correctly interpreted.
My second question is: Are there any other article content issues other than an image dispute? If so, what is the other issue?


In my view, a failure to properly reflect the international scientific classification in this article will contribute to the stigmatisation of ASD and its treatments to millions of people around the world. Your decision may disproportionately mislead the poorest and highest risk of readers due to economic and educational disadvantages. This will increase morbidity, create chaos in families and drive up health care costs.
My third and fourth questions are about the images. Third, are all of the images in Commons? If not, what is their copyright and fair use status? Fourth, will each editor please state concisely why they think that the ] supports their view about images? Address all of your answers to the moderator (me) and the community. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.
] (]) 19:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)


While considering each reply, I urge reviewers to carefully consider and weigh in the scientific evidence in regards to their recommendations.
===Zeroth statements by editors (Tuner)===
# The dispute is about the number of images and their ] to the content.
# I'm not aware of any other content dispute.
# All images are in Commons and I don't know of any fair use issues.
~] (]) 20:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan ====
''Is there an issue about the inclusion of certain images in the article?''
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


Yes, as ] says, some of the dispute seems to concern epistemic injustice concerns and how to interpret standards of evidence here.
Yes, Images unreadable at thumb MOS:IMAGEQUALITY --:> showing the subject too small... so Yamaha T-420, Onkyo T-4000 are too small - unreadable at thumb.


There is also definitely a strong debate going on over whether, per established standards of evidence for wikipedia and for medical claims within wikipedia, there is in fact a consensus of reputable sources (especially recent sources) supporting a traditional medical understanding of autism, or whether per such standards of evidence there appears to be a division between traditional medical and neurodiversity-aligned perspectives on autism. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
''Are there any other article content issues other than an image dispute? If so, what is the other issue?''


:I would like to reiterate that any drop in evidential standards could lead to the inclusion of debunked and dangerous practices, particularly as at least one editor has revealed themselves to be sympathetic toward facilitated communication - an anti-autistic practice which is often falsely claimed to be supported from a neurodiversity perspective - the inclusion of which has already been litigated on Misplaced Pages. The medical model being poor does not automatically lead to the populist online autism movement being good. Autistic people deserve the same standards as everyone else. ] (]) 08:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
No
::I don't believe anybody is advocating for reduced evidential standards. The question is about which standards apply to what.
::My position on FC is that it is a dubious practice, worryingly open to abuse, but that we need to be wary of over-generalising from the evidence available on it (and that it is worth looking at studies publised since this was last 'litigated on Misplaced Pages'). ] (]) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by HarmonyA8 ====
''Are all of the images in Commons?''
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


==== Summary of dispute by TempusTacet ====
Yes
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


==== Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing ====
''Please state concisely why they think that the the image use policy supports their view about images?''
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


I think that only the first three editors in this list (Oolong, Димитрий Улянов Иванов, and Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan) are very relevant. However, I'm willing to help (e.g., to provide assistance with the {{tl|MEDRS evaluation}} of sources). ] (]) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:IMAGEPOL - WP:IG is pretty clear:


==== Summary of dispute by FactOrOpinion ====
* ''A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article'' - This is a shoehorn per adding editors .
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
The conflict seems to be very longstanding, and I've only participated in the discussion during the last week, so my understanding of the conflict is very incomplete. A significant piece of it is that there are contrasting approaches to thinking about autism — a medical model and a neurodiversity perspective — and the article currently emphasizes the first of those, which makes it feel unbalanced to others. There are differences of opinion about which views/content are significant (in the NPOV sense) and therefore should be represented in the article; and among the various groups who might seek out the article (e.g., autistic people, family members, allies, different kinds of professionals), some will not find much content, even though there are reliable sources for it. For example, there's little about the lived experiences of people with autism, and some content that one might expect to be touched on with a link to further info (e.g., autistic meltdowns) are totally absent. Arguably, the text is not as accessible to as broad an array of readers as it should be. Some of the conflict seems linked to the role of scholarship. Everyone recognizes that when scholarly sources are available, they're usually the best sources; however, some may think that if content cannot be sourced to a scholarly source, then it shouldn't be included. I recognize that MEDRS guides sources for biomedical info; but some of the relevant info for the article is not biomedical. ] (]) 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:I am willing to try dispute resolution, but I have no experience with it. I have read the rules introduced by ] below, as well as ], and I agree to these rules. It's not clear to me when I should move to the ''Zeroeth statements by editors'' section rather than responding here. Once that's clarified, I'll respond to Robert McClenon's questions in the appropriate section.
* ''a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons.'' This is an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject, no way to discern one from the other or why they are there, and no way to improve the images - they are generally unreadable.other than looking like a tuner (and some of them don't even look like a tuner). And they are already in the Wikimedia Commons.
:Important note: I have no expertise in the subject. I ended up at the Autism talk page because an editor who is autistic posted a concern at the Teahouse about the imbalance in the article and felt that their Talk concerns were not being given due weight, and I hoped that I could be a bit helpful on the talk page. Given the breadth of the disagreement and my lack of expertise, it will be hard for me to suggest specific changes in the article, though I can make more general comments (e.g., comments about whether certain content might be introduced in order to address the needs of diverse readers who'd come to the article seeking information, whether the text is likely to be accessible to such readers, whether I think a given WP:PAG is being correctly interpreted). My guess is that I will not be as active in the discussion as the editors with subject matter knowledge / editors who have a longer history in the dispute, and it may be that my comments will simply be too general to be helpful and that I should therefore bow out. ] (]) 16:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0 ====
* ''cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images'' Text already describes the evolution of Tuners and, per the current text, two images are all you need: an image of tuner vacuum tubes, an image of tuner transistors.
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


==== Summary of dispute by GreenMeansGo ====
* ''Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made'' These images do not collectively add to the reader's understanding because they are barely readable and repetitive so no contrast or comparison can be made.
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
{{hat|Comment in your own section. ] (]) 03:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}}
''Note: Editor is "]" and will not be participating.'' --] (]) 09:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}


=== Autism discussion ===
] (]) 02:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>


1. Yes, the issue is about the images.
2. No, there is no other dispute other than the value of the images and image gallery and whether it is telling a useful story or illustrating something useful.
3. All images are on Commons and there are no issues with copyright.
4. Basically my argument hinges on such text in ] as {{tq|A gallery section may be appropriate in some Misplaced Pages articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images...Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made....Images should be captioned to explain their relevance to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery...Some subjects easily lend themselves to image-heavy articles for which image galleries are suitable, such as plants (e.g., ]), fashion (e.g., ]), and the visual arts (e.g., ]). Others do not}} My argument is that these images are not, as has been claimed, blurry, dark, unreadable, low quality, or redundant. They are clear illustrations of what a Tuner is and what a Tuner has looked like. They are selected to show a good cross-section of different images - front and back, inside and outside, Japanese, German, American, analog, digital, wood, metal, plastic, tube, solid state, etc. It is not necessary to be able to read the writing or the numbers, as those do not contribute to anything useful that isn't explained in the article itself. The point of the images is to illustrate consumer electronics and digital products industrial design. The arguments made don't hold up to scrutiny regarding the images or the policy or the consensus. Originally, I had placed the images all as thumbnails alongside the text, but I changed it to a gallery as many other articles do. There is no blanket consensus not to place these useful images, as has been claimed. If a specific image is perceived to be problematic, we could find a replacement or remove that one, but I do not see that overall, the criticisms that have been rendered on the images are policy-based or justifiable. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 02:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Autism)===
:The galleries in the examples given in green text contribute to the article in specific ways. In ], the gallery is just dropped at the end of an already overloaded section. It may turn out that a gallery is a good thing to have in an improved version of the article. Per ] I'm not actually opposed to retaining it if that's where we're heading (I do, however, have some skepticism about how well that will work out) but I don't yet see the beginnings of any of that in the text. The only hints that this may be coming are talk page statements from Andrevan and inclusion of dates and countries in the gallery captions. If Andrevan can show us a source or two we can use to back the story of tuner development, that would help convince me that this direction has some promise. ~] (]) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I am ready to assess whether moderated discussion will be useful to improve the article on ] and to resolve any content disputes. If we do use moderated discussion, this is likely to be a long mediation, and I will probably have to develop a new set of rules. I know that the rules will include;
*Be ]. Civility is required everywhere in Misplaced Pages, and is essential to resolving content disputes.
*Be concise. Long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not always convey useful information. Remember that an editor who sees a ] is likely to ignore it.
*Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions. (I will be the moderator.) Address your answers to the moderator and to the community.
*Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so discuss the article or proposed changes to the article.
*Do not make any reports to conduct forums while moderated discussion is in progress. One objective of moderated discussion is to avoid discussions of conduct and to resolve content issues first, because often the conduct issues resolve themselves when the content dispute is resolved.


In the meantime, my first question for each editor is whether you would like to try moderated discussion (mediation) in order to resolve content disputes. If you answer yes, I have a two-part question and another question. The purpose of moderated discussion, or of any dispute resolution, is to improve an article. I will split my usual introductory question into two parts. First, please state what changes, if any, you want to make to the ] of the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change. We can go into more detail about those changes later. Third, please provide links to any previous discussions of content or conduct issues about the topic that have not been resolved. I just want a list of all of the previous discussions. Do not comment on them, because I am trying to focus the discussion by asking my usual introductory question (in a two-part form).
===First statement by moderator (Tuner)===
It appears that one editor wants to include a ] of images of radio tuners, and two other editors disagree. I am asking each editor to provide a revised statement of why they think that the ] either is consistent with the ] or is not consistent with it. If there is no agreement, we will develop a ] on the yes-no question of whether to include the gallery in the article. So, in preparing your statement, develop a statement that will be included in the RFC for the attention of the community.
] (]) 17:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)


I don't yet know whether ] is the right forum to resolve disputes about ], but I will try to make that assessment based on the answers to the above questions.
Are there any other content issues?
] (]) 03:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:Yes, I would like to try moderated discussion. Are you looking for responses as replies here, or in the section below (or...)?
===First statements by editors (Tuner)===
:I've never participated in a dispute resolution procedure here (aside from the one linked above which was closed because I didn't get a notification, and didn't know to refresh the page daily, and which I didn't know how to reopen). Also, like many of the parties to this dispute, I am autistic. Explicit instructions will therefore be welcome! Thank you.
The image gallery is consistent with both the image use policy as well as the examples of many other articles which have detailed image galleries, much larger and taking up more space and more redundant than the modest image gallery on ]. I originally created this article back in 2004 and it was in a very poor state until I started working on it again recently. I already have a detailed narrative in the works in the article with references, and a big part of that has to do with the early growth of the FM radio and TV and American consumer electronics industry after World War II, followed by the growth of electronics development and production primarily in Japan and the production of cheap, miniaturized transistors and the growth of digital electronics. That is illustrated by the photos which show the evolution of the tuner from the days of the vacuum tube to solid state circuit boards. You do not need to be an expert to understand what a tube is and what a board is and see the little capacitors and filters and stuff and then see how the analog knobs give way to digital, tape deck looking, black, plastic hi-fi. If the specific images look a bit bad to someone, I am open to swapping out the images for better-looking images, but there's absolutely no policy basis that categorically rules out having image galleries. I do not at all see how it is a constructive or consensus building activity to just come along and remove image galleries when many many other pages have them. The images I have selected for the page are a small sampling of the many images on Commons for this topic, the ones that have decent lighting and a well-framed subject that clearly shows what it is without bad framing, reflections or weird shadows or darkness. I've chosen a chronology from 1960 to 1990, and several American units, a German unit, and a Japanese unit, one of each showing the guts, ie tube, board, or another kind of board. In some cases it's the front and back of the same thing to show a different angle and give a better idea of what you're looking at. All of this to me is reasonable to try to show what a tuner is, which shows you something you don't get from the text. You wouldn't know that a vacuum tube is a weird round thingy like a tin can or that a ceramic filter is a tiny diode that solders onto a small lead, but you do actually kind of get that from the images. You wouldn't necessarily understand the idea of turning a dial to manipulate a radio if you never saw one in real life. There are kids on this website who were born in 2005 let's say, who have never seen one of these. I think they improve the article and improve Misplaced Pages. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 08:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:Answering your other questions will be complicated, because what really needs to happen involves rather extensive changes. Even small changes have persistently been blocked by parties taking one particular position on this, so moving on to questions around the bigger changes required has repeatedly been stymied.
:I feel that I should flag up two essays that I've written, provoked by past discussions around all of this, to clarify my position - I hope you agree that this is appropriate here. The first is (published in the ) and ], posted here and . You are under no obligation to read these or take them into consideration, but they might help you to understand some of the issues at stake if you do so. ] (]) 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


===Zeroth statements by editors (Autism)===
Per WP:IG Misplaced Pages is not an image repository. A gallery of images must explain (something). Images should not be redundant such as a 1960 dial with knobs, a 1977 dial with knobs and a 1978 dial with knobs. Parts on a circuit board are by their very nature hidden in clutter, ambiguous, and the subject is too small to be read at thumb. WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments are not a good reason to keep something. ] (]) 12:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)


== Sri Lankan Vellalar ==
I am on vacation this week and won't participate again until next week. Hopefully you can keep this moving based on what I've already said. ~] (]) 14:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)


{{DR case status}}
===Second statement by moderator (Tuner)===
<!-- ] 05:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1737265469}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
I have created a draft RFC at ]. I am asking the proponent of including the ] to put the proposed image gallery in the draft RFC. It will go live after we review and discuss it. Do the editors want to include statements for and against the inclusion of the image gallery in the RFC, or are they satisfied to make their cases in the Discussion section when the RFC is live?
{{drn filing editor|Kautilyapundit|05:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}

Are there any other content issues?
] (]) 16:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

:Ok. I added the gallery to it and I'm fine with the discussion having the statemens after live if everyone else is. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

===Second statements by editors (Tuner)===
I'm back. My primary objection is that the gallery doesn't tell the story it is purported to tell. Deletion is not the only option. Improving the gallery may address my objection. I'm willing to help make improvements to see where that goes. In the spirit of ] I think we should give due consideration to non-deletion alternatives. ~] (]) 23:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

===Third statement by moderator (Tuner)===
I would like to include two concise statements, one in support of an ], and one opposed to an image gallery for this article. Since one of the editors who opposes the image gallery is on break, probably the other one can compose the statement. After that is done, the RFC can be activated.
] (]) 03:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

===Third statements by editors (Tuner)===


===Fourth statement by moderator (Tuner)===
I am ready to activate the RFC if there is still an impasse. However, one of the editors who had previously disagreed with the addition of the image gallery says that they are willing to discuss changes to the image gallery or compromise. So I will ask each of the editors who has disagreed with the image gallery what changes, if any, they think should be made. I will also ask the editor who has proposed the image gallery whether they have any ideas for changes to the gallery. We will keep the RFC in draft to activate if it becomes necessary. ] (]) 04:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

===Fourth statements by editors (Tuner)===
I'd be happy to compromise by advancing more constructive changes to the image gallery such as swapping out individual images if some are less liked for whatever reason, reducing the number or otherwise making adjustments. I'm also still working on, though I haven't been in the last few days, expanding the article narrative to explain more of the detail around the history of consumer electronics and stereo equipment with an eye to radio tuners specifically and the evolution of vintage hi-fi vis globalization, miniaturization, and the evolution of user interfaces, or collaborate on how we might do that. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

:Again, my main concern is that the story of tuner evolution be more clearly told in the gallery. We can talk about how to do that but if we are doing this as ] it's not going to fly. Do we have some reliable sources to base this story on? ~] (]) 14:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's not original research. Everything in the article is well-referenced and I'm making sure it's all grounded in reliable sources. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 17:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::My thought was to create a separate section for the gallery and add an introduction based on what you've said here and at ]. If I created such an introduction, would you be able to source it? ~] (]) 17:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes I'm open to that. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 17:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm also interested to know whether {{u|Fountains of Bryn Mawr}} thinks this approach has promise, because as you've pointed out, even if this works for the both of us, 2 vs 1 is not a consensus. ~] (]) 17:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
WP:V -->'''''All''' material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, '''must be verifiable'''.'' WP:IG --> ''Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text.''
We are not reinventing the wheel here, policy and consensus guidelines already cover this. It looks to me that there is not much more to "history of tuners" that can't be told in 3 or 4 images. The gallery as it stands now has no context and is primary sourced. There would have to be secondary sources backing up an intro and making these comparisons, in photographs you can read. None of that exists now. ] (]) 11:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

:] says primary sources can be used with care for simple facts. The primary sources are simply used for the names and release information for the tuners. I am not using primary sources for interpretation. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::You are putting them in sequence as specific steps in development, that is interpretation. ] (]) 01:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Not really, the sequence is based on the years.... are you saying knowing that 1990 is later than 1960 is OR? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:That's a convincing ''no'' to my question to {{u|Fountains of Bryn Mawr}}. I think we should proceed with the RFC. We still need text for ]. I can work on that but it will take a day or two to get to. ~] (]) 02:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

== Wolf ==

{{DR case status|active}}
<!-- ] 09:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1731318253}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Nagging Prawn|09:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 424: Line 278:


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Wolf}} * {{pagelinks|Sri Lankan Vellalar}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Nagging Prawn}} * {{User|Kautilyapundit}}
* {{User|Wolverine_XI}} * {{User|Luigi Boy}}
* {{User|Moxy}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


A user repeatedly adds misleading edits to the caste article. In the section on mythological origins, they introduced misleading edits. If the source states "A," they modify it to say "B" to support their narrative. This constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The sources should specifically discuss the origin of the Sri Lankan Vellalar, but they fail to do so, instead recounting tales of other caste groups. There are other sources discussing the mythological origin of Vellalars, but he dismisses them and continues adding misleading edits with synthesized sources.
I attempted to add a sentence on the Wolf Misplaced Pages page citing a report from a peer-reviewed scientific journal of one wolf eating 181 Payette's Short-Winged Grasshoppers. Unfortunately, I encountered unexpected resistance, despite there having been no such disputes regarding this report in the citing literature. I was told to bring it up to the talk page, which I did. I was told to justify my edit, which I tried to do, citing precedent for similar dietary detail in other Misplaced Pages articles. An anonymous user concurred that it seemed worthy of inclusion, but I did not receive a rebuttal. After waiting for several weeks, I believed the support from a third party and lack of response otherwise might justify reverting the reversion. However, my edit was reverted again. Upon requesting reasons why this occurred on the talk page, I was told there was no context for the fact I was trying to add to the article. However, the citation provides this context, and upon mentioning this I received no response. After some days, I tried again to add this fact to the article, but after a few more days it was reverted again, with no new arguments given. As far as I can tell, this edit does not violate Misplaced Pages guidelines, so I am at a loss.

Additionally, the user seems to be using AI to counter my responses. They don't fully understand my points and keep repeating the same arguments in different contexts.

We also sought a third opinion, but that editor doesn't appear to be active on the talk page. He has no idea on south asian group articles and its complex editing rules.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>


I was told to open a topic about this on the Wolf talk page, so I acquiesced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Wolf#Including_a_note_about_a_paper_reporting_a_lone_wolf_that_ate_181_grasshoppers
When objections were raised, I made good faith attempts to address them in this topic.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>


This noticeboard might have more professional editors who are knowledgeable about South Asian groups and communities. I believe they can resolve the dispute by cross-verifying our points.
Hopefully, I would like to be able to add this observation to the article, as it is such a surprising report. It neatly demonstrates the dietary breadth mentioned in the sentence that would have preceded this edit. Failing that, I would like robust reasons why this should be excluded. I hope moderation can encourage either the addition of this fact or meaningful dialogue about why it shouldn't be added.


==== Summary of dispute by Wolverine_XI ==== ==== Summary of dispute by Luigi Boy ====
First and foremost, I would like to thank user Kautilyapundit for initiating this dispute. This discussion will undoubtedly help clarify and resolve the concerns at hand. From my perspective, there are two distinct issues that need to be addressed:
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


- Terminology differences
One wolf eating 181 grasshoppers is hardly surprising. Why this user keeps on pushing this useless fact is beyond me. I'd like to hear what others have to say. ] <sup>(])</sup> 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)


- The inclusion of the mythology section
==== Summary of dispute by Moxy ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
Odd random trivia about ONE wolf ].<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 11:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
==== Zeroth statement by board volunteer (NotAGenious) ====
I am willing to act as a meditator in this dispute. I have no connection to the article or any of the users involved.


'''Terminology Differences'''
DRN is a voluntary process, and further meditation is on hold pending a summary to be provided by ]. Should he not respond by next Monday, the dispute will be moderated between only you two.


The root of the terminology issue stems from my , where I restored information that had been removed without adequate justification or proof that the cited sources were ].
In the meantime, please confirm in the respective sections below that you agree on having a moderated dispute and will follow ]. ] (]) 14:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
==== Zeroth statement by Nagging Prawn (agreement on a moderated dispute and the ground rules) ====
I agree to a moderated dispute and accept the ground rules. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


To provide clarity, I included a sentence explaining the transliteration of the term Vellalar. Specifically:
==== Zeroth statement by Moxy (agreement on a moderated dispute and the ground rules) ====
:Sure.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 12:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)


- {{Langx|ta|வேளாளர்|Vēḷāḷar}} refers to the context found in ancient Tamil literature like the ].
=== Wolf discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>


- {{Langx|ta|வெள்ளாளர்|Veḷḷāḷar}} represents the caste name in contemporary usage.
== Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic ==
This distinction adds context about the societies mentioned in classical Tamil texts and the evolution of terminology over time. The confusion arises mainly because the parent caste ] often uses this term {{Langx|ta|வேளாளர்|Vēḷāḷar}}, whereas modern usage differentiates the two terms.


'''Inclusion of the Mythology Section'''
{{DR case status}}
<!-- ] 05:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1731648538}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Randomstaplers|05:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)}}


The second issue is the inclusion (or exclusion) of the mythology section. The claim that I oppose adding more mythology is a misrepresentation of my stance. I've never dismissed other mythological references. If additional, well-sourced myths exist, I encourage to include those as well.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>


The argument for removing the existing mythology section hinges on the fact that the parent article does not discuss this topic. However, this overlooks the fact that the mythology in question is specific to Sri Lankan Vellalars and does not pertain to the parent caste. Removing the section entirely would erase relevant, sourced context unique to this sub-caste.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.


'''Third-Party Opinion'''
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Randomstaplers}}
* {{User|Bon courage}}
* {{User|Crossroads}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


Fortunately, user AirshipJungleman29 has provided a third opinion on this matter. They rightly suggested that if the sources in question are deemed ] or not ], the concerned user should raise the issue on ]. To date, no such dispute has been initiated, leaving the claim unsubstantiated.
This is my first extensive talking through a semi-controversial dispute, so forgive me if I wasn't perfect.


I hope this explanation addresses the concerns raised by Kautilyapundit and provides clarity on the rationale behind my edits. I am open to further discussions and look forward to collaborative resolutions to improve the article.
So, for the past month, I've had a bit of a problem with the articles wording. I edited it, it was reverted, discussion ensued. Eventually, we settled on a consensus for about a month from Mid-September to October of 2024. It was on a dispute between findings from and , which cites . This is reflected in ] on September 13th.


=== Sri Lankan Vellalar discussion ===
In the meantime, I decided to post some information I'd found for readers to see. I was not warned about this behavior at the time, but I feel it necessary, because I don't censor my own thoughts and biases.

On October 17th, I noticed that there were text-source integrity issues with , first documented at ].

As a result I felt the need to rephrase certain parts of the article to better reflect the newly found reliability problems.

As I said, I'm inexperienced, but I feel there might be a content problem here, especially after seeing the referencing problems in ], and the use of sources by the review that have been rejected.

Anyways, I hope working through DRN will help us improve dispute resolution in the future, and highlight areas where I, and we, need improvement.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>

]

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>

Clarifying policy, and also, what to do about , with regards to how it treats its references, linked ()

=== Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>


== Kamaria Ahir ==
(involved; apologies if I am not getting the formatting right) The fundamental problem here is that Randomstaplers is engaging in what another editor succinctly labeled {{tq|perform amateur peer-review on ] sources}} - in this case, the ] review article above called "Source C". It is not the place of Wikpedia editors to negate the findings of such MEDRS sources based on personal analysis, only to reflect expert views as expressed in the highest quality published sources.

Yet, Randomstaplers is insisting on . It contains the text {{tq|A review from the Cochrane Collaboration, updated in 2023, claimed (contrary to the claims of some of its cited papers) that masking had little effect on the spread of viral illness.}} 6 is the Cochrane review itself; 165 and 166 are individual studies Cochrane cites, which Randomstaplers is here clearly using to argue against the review's conclusions. '''This is original research''' and completely contrary to the instructions of MEDRS.

That previous edit also has at least some other problems. It states about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that {{tq|Various reviews on RCTs find that masking reduces the rate of respiratory infection}}, but cites for this at least some sources that do not review RCTs at all, such as and . I can't ignore the irony that this is a clear lack of text-source integrity in their own content, the very thing they are accusing Cochrane of. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

=== Comment by Bon courage ===
The proposed edit(s) seem to be a long and elaborate way of not simply saying with the best sources say (specifically, a Cochrane Review). I think we should just summarize the best sources faithfully. ] (]) 06:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Face masks)===
The filing editor has not listed and notified the other editors. One of the other editors has replied, and so does not need to be notified, but should be listed. Other editors who were involved in the discussion on the article talk page must be listed and notified. The filing editor and the editor who has replied should read ] and ], and should acknowledge that they have read those rules. ] (]) 01:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

:Acknowledged. I did notify @] with substituted {{tl|drn-notice}}, but they appear to have deleted the template. If we come to a resolution, we might need to notify a proxy editor, because I... kinda don't want to be the one to write it.
{{collapse top|title=Collapsing long winded response ⸺(])] 04:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)}}
{{break}}
:Just to respond to you @], the reason why I was initially compelled to edit was because RCTs on masks didn't seem to pass the sniff test, which is an engineered object... like a life jacket. I don't think it's reasonable to assign so much prominence to an life jacket RCT, which is the way I see a mask RCT: ''an RCT on an engineered object?''
:{{break}}
:Because I had a feeling that my edits might be problematic, I created a talk page thread going through the process to explain my edits, and to verify my own edits again in the future. I called it "Removal of RCTs in progress"... well, I meant removal of some RCTs to try and reduce its prominence, but... how it sounded in my head clearly didn't translate well. I changed it only recently, after I read it to myself again.
:{{break}}
:Also, US regulation , and especially ] might be helpful to understand my point of view. In any case, I decided to reduce the prominence a bit more than I think is reasonable now, and might not have read the papers in their entirety. Also, I edit a lot of ] articles. I guess... writing too much on certain topic, on Misplaced Pages, no less, can shift your POV.
:{{break}}
:(You know, I expected papers to cite 1910.134 more, since that would make better sense as an RCT behaviorally, but that's besides the point- I wanted to show why I was reducing the weight of RCTs in the article. I felt that the lessened burden of policy on talk pages would allow me to express myself better, but it didn't translate well this time).
:{{break}}
:I also noticed that the section in question, ''efficacy'', was in ]. Tried to address that earlier, and decided to drop it pending further consensus. Only my additions got kept.
:{{break}}
:Before the compromise came, I suggested ], because the more sources we cite, the more likely we might cite a source that may be dubious. Crossroads did bring up a good point to include a ''variety'' of sources, and that's what convinced me at the time to the compromise.
:{{break}}
:Basically, my initial goal was trying to adjust the article to match what I thought was due weight, based on my previous editing history to other articles. But... that was a month ago, and '''we came to a consensus'''.
:{{break}}
:'''The latest change''' came from me noticing that and its () did not notify readers that certain papers had their protocols fail, particularly . This, I feel, warrants some sort of change. (In addition, the mislink on Aelami 2015 made me extra suspicious.) What I was doing was checking the reference's references. I thought I read the policy somewhere, but I forget what it's called.
:{{break}}
:In any case, journal mishaps do happen from time to time - ], ], and the ] are what come to mind, at least for me. And the lying by omission about your references kind of reminded me of ].
:{{break}}
:We staged a rollout so everyone could check. To try and make the article more readable and avoid thread mode, I tried to consolidate all the RCT papers in support of masking, expanded one example and note the discrepancy in source C, linked here: ]. That edit was reverted, and here we are.
:{{break}}
:I made several bold changes to the article to address these changes, expecting more editing than reverts, because of ], but eh, whatever. I make a lot of typos, and spend more time on articles doubting myself as a result.
:{{break}}
:Anyways I think that about covers it. Any thoughts?⸺(])] 06:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::* Oh, and one more thing about my initial surprise at source C. It was directed at the source, not to anyone in particular. I was having my mind blown! Like, ''how'' could source C, that's been updated many times since 2007, ''still'' contain a mislink and omission of facts? Like, do I have to verify each paper's bibliography, from now on, before I can use it? Just to be sure they aren't lying by omission?
::* And, as for the mislinked Pubmed from showing an experiment done through a modified mas, with significantly less filter surface area, that also blew my mind. You can't call that an N95 respirator anymore , and it voids the NIOSH approval...!⸺(])] 06:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
===First statement by possible moderator (Face masks)===
When I said that the other editors should be listed by the filing editor, I meant that the other editors should be listed by the filing editor. I meant that they should be listed, regardless of whether they had responded without being notified, and regardless of whether they had declined to participate in moderated discussion. The filing editor should still list all of the other editors.

I said that the editors should acknowledge that they have read ]. I did not ask for an 800-word history, which I do not need.

Since two editors have posted, we can continue, although the listing of other editors is still required, and is the responsibility of the filing editor. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I will ask each editor to make a concise statement about what part of the article 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. It is not important to explain why you want to change the article or leave it the same. We can discuss that later. Just tell what in the article is the subject of the dispute.
] (]) 00:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

:* Listed.⸺(])] 04:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

===First statements by editors (Face masks)===
I'll ignore the previous issues that got consensus last month. The issue right now is that this ], which I implemented following noticing issues with Source C. It was reverted by Crossroads, and then we agreed to implement in stages. The ] got added. The ] then got reverted by Bon <strike>Voyage</strike> courage. Further discussion did not go anywhere with regards to improving the paragraph. ⸺(])] 04:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
* Corrected a typo. Dang it... they pop up more often for me than the average editor, AFAICT.⸺(])] 16:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

== Instant-runoff voting ==


{{DR case status|closed}} {{DR case status|closed}}
{{drn filing editor|Closed Limelike Curves|00:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}} {{drn filing editor|Nlkyair012|20:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|Closed as also pending in another forum, ]. ] does not accept a dispute that is also pending in another content or conduct forum, and RSN is a content forum. When there are two types of issues about one article, it is not practical to try to resolve them in two forums at the same time, because often issues overlap, and because the resolution in one forum might change what is being discussed in the other forum. Finish the discussion at ] and decide whether there are any remaining content issues that are consistent with what has been decided about ]. If there are any remaining content issues, resume discussion on the article talk page. If the subsequent discussion on the article talk page is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case request can be filed here. ] (]) 03:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
{{DRN archive top|Closed as declined by some of the other editors and then withdrawn by the filing editor. If there are continued content issues, the editors should discuss on the article talk page, or use an RFC. ] (]) 23:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)}}
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Instant-runoff voting}} * {{pagelinks|Kamaria Ahir}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Closed Limelike Curves}} * {{User|Ratnahastin}}
* {{User|Joeyconnick}}
* {{User|David Eppstein}}
* {{User|180 Degree Open Angedre}}
* {{User|RobLa}}
* {{User|Rankedchoicevoter}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


The dispute revolves around the use of Raj-era sources, specifically K.S. Singh’s "Anthropological Survey of India," in the article on "Kamaria Ahir." One editor, Nlkyair012, is advocating for the removal of these sources, arguing that they are outdated and unreliable. However, these historical sources, particularly those from the British Raj, are still cited in reputable modern academic works as valuable historical references for caste dynamics and structures. The issue also includes the inclusion of living people's names without proper self-identification, which violates Misplaced Pages's Biographies of Living Persons policy (BLP). The goal of this dispute resolution is to determine whether the Raj-era sources and K.S. Singh’s work should be retained or replaced, and to ensure that the article adheres to Misplaced Pages's guidelines on neutrality and verifiability.
There's ongoing multi-way edit-warring over different variants of an article, in a way that doesn't strongly reflect consensus. Lots of different disputes ongoing at the same time, so really the most helpful thing would be to invite someone in to sort out the chaos and help us get back on track discussing the article, instead of getting embroiled in personal attacks or disputes.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>


]
]
]
]


]
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>


]
—Temporary lock on article and return to last stable version to prevent further disruption


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
—Neutral mediator who can help us incorporate best parts of different conflicting versions


The dispute can be resolved by carefully reviewing the reliability of Raj-era sources and K.S. Singh's work, considering modern academic citations that rely on these sources, and determining whether they meet Misplaced Pages's standards of verifiability. Additionally, we can remove any names of living people to comply with the BLP policy while maintaining the historical and sociological content that is well-sourced. Collaboration on improving the article is key, and I suggest that experts in anthropology or caste studies provide input on the appropriateness of these sources for this article.
—Admin/neutral arbiter to help us identify the main points of disagreement and discuss improvements


The current dispute is about the inclusion of Raj-era sources, particularly from the British colonial period, in the article "(https://en.wikipedia.org/Kamaria_Ahir)." I believe these sources are valuable for understanding the historical context of caste structures in India, despite their age. While I acknowledge that (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Age_matters) advises caution with older sources, it does not outright prohibit their use, especially when they provide unique historical insights that modern works may lack. Raj-era ethnographic works were written by government officials and are often cited in contemporary research for their firsthand observations, making them relevant in understanding caste dynamics.
==== Summary of dispute by Joeyconnick ====
My take is the underlying issue is the conduct of the filing editor, Closed Limelike Curves, and not the content of the article itself. As such, I personally do not agree to moderated discussion of the content. —] (]) 23:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


A central issue in this dispute is the use of K.S. Singh’s "(https://en.wikipedia.org/Anthropological_Survey_of_India)" (ASI), which I have cited in the article. The ASI, although created under government supervision, is a significant academic resource that continues to be referenced in Indian academia. While some may question its modern reliability, it remains an authoritative source, and dismissing it entirely without further scrutiny undermines its contribution to the topic. As per (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Scholarship), high-quality academic sources are essential, but older sources like K.S. Singh’s are still valid when used in conjunction with modern studies to provide a complete view of the topic.
==== Summary of dispute by David Eppstein ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


I also understand concerns related to (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons), particularly regarding the inclusion of living people's names in caste articles. If specific names are a violation of (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BLP_categories), I agree they should be removed. However, this does not justify removing the entire article or historical context that is verifiable and supported by well-established sources. The article provides valuable historical and sociological context that should not be discarded simply due to concerns over individual names.
This is part of a much broader pattern of disputes on articles on voting systems, centered around the original poster, and should not be considered in isolation. See ] and ] (both resolved but symptomatic). Other potential loci of concern include ] and . Also see as vandalism. —] (]) 06:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


The sources I have used are critical to the article’s depth and accuracy. While there are concerns over the accessibility and page numbers of some sources, I am willing to work to improve verifiability, such as by adding missing page numbers or citing additional resources. According to (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources), I aim to improve the article's citation standards, but my main goal is to maintain the article’s historical integrity while complying with Misplaced Pages’s standards for verifiability, neutrality, and reliability.
:I have also had issues with this user (CLC) characterizing all of my attempts to correct their POV pushing as "vandalism," and abusing the complexity & multiplicity of Misplaced Pages bureaucracy in order to get their way. This user clearly has an agenda that is not guided by academic, professional, or otherwise scientific expertise or experience. ] (]) 15:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:I have not interacted personally with CLC, but I completely agree with this assessment. Reading ], it becomes quickly apparent that the issue is less with any actual dispute to resolve, and more with the very unilateral kind of editing practiced by this user there and the other pages aforementioned. ] (]·]) 16:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


(https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ratnahastin) has raised concerns about the reliability and relevance of these sources, particularly due to their age. However, rather than removing content entirely, I propose that we retain these sources while improving the article’s clarity and citation standards. The article can be collaboratively improved to ensure it meets Misplaced Pages's guidelines while preserving the depth of the subject matter.
==== Summary of dispute by 180 Degree Open Angedre ====
I honestly have not been around long enough to know the full history of this dispute. The little bit that I am aware of is that Closed Limelike Curves had attempted to move the article from Instant runoff voting to Ranked Choice voting, initially without any discussion. After some reverting back and forth, a discussion was finally made about it at ] and at least to me, it seems like a consensus was reached to keep the article's title as instant runoff. As far as I am concerned, that dispute has already been resolved. The only other discussions that I've further participated directly relating to instant runoff voting with Closed Limelike Curves is at the ] that they had made after their attempt to get the name changed on the main instant runoff page ended with a consensus to keep the name the same, and ] topic that I started because I found that they had created a separate draft page of instant runoff voting: ] , and I wanted clarification on whether or not we were supposed to do our edits there instead of on the main article. All of these discussions would appear to either be resolved or very close to reaching consensus, at least as far as I can tell, with maintaining the status quo being where most of the discussion on the RFC ended and on the Draft article issue, it was recommended that the Draft article be cleared out and replaced with a redirect to the main page as it was a ] (which I don't think has happened yet). None of these topics were apparently the ones Closed Limelike Curves listed as being where the dispute was taking place, so I don't know what else from my perspective that is relevant to say.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)</small>
</div>


==== Summary of dispute by RobLa ==== ==== Summary of dispute by Ratnahastin ====
The OP does not really understand the purpose of WP:DR. The proper venue for this dispute was ]. - ] (]) 02:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I fear that much of ] vis a vis electoral reform articles has been reckless and impatient in nature, and I can see why the unilateral renaming of "]" to "Ranked-choice voting" could be the last straw for some folks. I have interacted with CLC both here and elsewhere. My short conflict-of-interest statement: I once was an advocate for "instant-runoff voting"/"ranked-choice voting" and volunteered with the organization now known as "]" back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but I prefer alternative reforms these days. See ] for more. I frequently wear my bias on my sleeve, but I also strive to maintain NPOV with respect to Misplaced Pages article editing (especially electoral reform articles). Many editors over the years (e.g. ]) failed to disclose their COI, which has been problematic on many articles related to electoral reform. CLC has been active with some of the same organizations I've been active with. I do not condone the disruptive way they've been editing Misplaced Pages, but I appreciate that they seem persistent enough to eventually become a valuable editor on electoral reform articles. I think CLC could benefit from mentoring; possibly from me, but I suspect they'd be more likely to listen to someone else. Any rebuke/retaliation for their editing behavior over the past few weeks/months should be mild and temporary, and should be paired with a serious effort to mentor them and ensure that they remain an active Misplaced Pages editor. -- ] (]) 05:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)


:I understand your concerns, but I’d appreciate if we could focus on constructive dialogue rather than dismissing my contributions as AI-generated or repetitive. I’ve put in considerable effort into researching and explaining my points here and on RSN, as you’ve acknowledged.
==== Summary of dispute by Rankedchoicevoter ====
:While RSN focuses strictly on source reliability, this discussion at DRN is broader—it’s about how content sourced from historical documents can be meaningfully incorporated into the article without violating Misplaced Pages’s guidelines like ] or ].
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
:I’d also like to emphasize that I’m not against incorporating modern tertiary sources. In fact, I’ve already proposed balancing the article with both historical and modern perspectives to ensure neutrality and depth. I am also willing to address verifiability concerns by adding specific page numbers or additional citations.
:Accusing me of forum shopping is inaccurate—I brought the matter to RSN to address the reliability of specific sources, and to DRN to resolve content disputes that go beyond just reliability. These are distinct yet connected aspects of the same issue.
:I hope we can focus on resolving the content dispute collaboratively rather than resorting to unproductive allegations. I look forward to hearing constructive feedback from DRN volunteers or other editors like @] and @], whom you’ve pinged. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 05:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Instant-runoff voting discussion === === Kamaria Ahir discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
*'''Volunteer Note''' - The filing editor has notified some of the editors but not all of the editors. All of the editors should be notified, especially in view of the relatively large number of editors being named. ] (]) 05:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC) *'''Volunteer Note''' - This appears to be an issue about the ]. Is this a question about the ]? If so, the proper forum is ], where the volunteers are more familiar with the source reliability guidelines than at ]. This case will be closed within 48 hours unless an issue is identified about article content that is not a source reliability question. ] (]) 04:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Volunteer Notes''' - If the filing editor, or anyone else, wants a temporary lock on the article due to edit-warring, they should make that request at ], preferably after reading ]. DRN is not a forum for page protection requests.
**There have been complaints about the conduct of the filing editor. DRN is not a forum to discuss user conduct, and discussion of user conduct at DRN is out of order. Either report user conduct at ] after reading ], or ignore the user conduct issues.
**We can begin moderated discussion of article content if at least one other editor agrees to moderated discussion of article content, AND there are no other discussions about this article or any of the editors in any other forum. ] (]) 22:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
*:I'd like to close this request for now, since it seems like the most relevant participants aren't interested in dispute resolution. ] (]) 16:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
{{DRN archive bottom}}


:Thank you for your note. I acknowledge that source reliability is a critical aspect of this dispute, and as you mentioned, I have already brought up this matter on the ] (RSN) ] to evaluate the specific sources in question.
== Sri Lankan Vellalar ==
:However, this dispute at DRN extends beyond just the reliability of sources. It involves a broader disagreement over how content from historical sources should be incorporated into the article while balancing compliance with Misplaced Pages's policies like ], ], and ].

:Here at DRN, I am seeking resolution on whether the historical context provided by these sources can be retained while ensuring the article aligns with community standards. This involves determining whether to refine, supplement, or restructure the article, rather than removing entire sections or sources outright.
{{DR case status|closed}}
:I appreciate your efforts and hope this clarifies why this discussion is taking place here in addition to RSN. If DRN volunteers feel this still doesn’t meet the scope of this forum, I’d appreciate guidance on next steps. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 05:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{drn filing editor|2409:40F4:200D:7C2B:BCDF:CF94:7E25:E27|17:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|Closed. Discussion on the '''article talk page''', ], is a precondition to any other dispute resolution. There has been a statement by the filing unregistered editor on the article talk page, but no replies to it. There has been minimal discussion on the other editor's talk page. Continue discussion at the article talk page. The filing unregistered editor is strongly advised to register an account, because it is difficult to keep track of contributions by the human behind a shifting IP address. If you have a static IPv6 address, that has the disadvantage of being impossible to remember except by writing it down, so register a pseudonym instead. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here, but it is likely that discussion will resolve any issues. ] (]) 22:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

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

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Sri Lankan Vellalar}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Luigi Boy}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

Some editors added misleading and misinterpreted edits to the article. I have explained to the editor that the content is fringe thing and misleading. In the article's "Mythological origin", the provided sources say A and the editors added B to imply their desired narrative. I simply pointed out that and removed it as it is invalid in the section. The editor has reverted it without listening to my points.



<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>

]

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>

I believe a mediator can verify the content's reliability and provide a solution by comparing what's written in the article vs what sources say. The opposite side doesn't even listen to what I say. They consider I'm a newcomer and inferior to them. So my points are invalid according to the editor. I hope a mediator can bring a good solution.



==== Summary of dispute by Luigi Boy ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

=== Sri Lankan Vellalar discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
:This is my first time coming to this noticeboard, but I've noticed the one discussion you've linked as trying to resolve the dispute before is on a user talk page, and Luigi has only provided one comment on the issue. Unless you've forgotten to provide other venues where you discussed the content, I don't believe we're ready to have this thread happen yet per the notice at the top of this page (previous discussions must be on an ''article'' talk page with more than ''one'' comment by the involved parties). I have no comment on the actual dispute yet. ] (]) 19:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
{{DRN archive bottom}} {{DRN archive bottom}}


== Old Government House, Parramatta ==
== NDIS ==


{{DR case status}} {{DR case status|open}}
<!-- ] 13:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1732022344}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! --> <!-- ] 06:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1737442069}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|ItsPugle|13:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)}} {{drn filing editor|Itchycoocoo|06:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 679: Line 400:


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|NDIS}} * {{pagelinks|Old Government House, Parramatta}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|ItsPugle}} * {{User|Itchycoocoo}}
* {{User|Iciebath}} * {{User|The Drover's Wife}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


Is a dispute regarding using non-copyright material used within the article ] that extends to >90% of material from another website.
I have proposed that the disambiguation page ] be pointed to ] as a ]. I have come to this proposal based on WikiNav data, PageView data, English literature occurances/Google Ngram data, and the prevalence and importance of the insurance scheme in both local and international sources including academic sources. None of the other articles linked to in the disambiguation page appear to have any close level of significance, prevalence or viewership.


As a chronology, I ] implemented the primary topic and created ] in early May 2024, which was then boldly reverted in early September 2024. I brought the topic to the article talk page to discuss with the reverter and provide my reasoning, and pinged the user. After a week of no discussion, I re-instituted the change under ] and notified the user. Three weeks later, the user reverted the change again, and replied citing perceived global significance issues and that determining a primary topic for a disambiguation page required a ]. I placed discussion notifications on three of the four articles linked to by ] (, , ; the fourth article was not notified as it is a stub article for a non-maintained piece of software with questionable ], no talk activity in >10 years, and no meaningful content additions/changes/removals in ~7 years), none of which have resulted in any other editors raising issues or objections. After continued back-and-forth on the article talk page, we cannot come to an agreement on the relevant policy, let alone its implementation or the actual merits of either 'side'.


The User who posted much of this material contends that "The material is CC-BY licensed, as stated in the edit summary and correctly attributed, which is, and has always been, usable on Misplaced Pages, and was added as part of a massive project by a number of Australian editors to import quality CC-BY content from a number of heritage sources."
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>




I think that this material should be placed subject under WP:EL/ External Links, and follow the clearly defined rules of WP:COPYPASTE/ Copying text from other sources, WP:Plagiarism & WP:PARAPHRASE guidelines.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>


Provide clarification as an independent third-party regarding:
1. The relevant procedure/policy that applies for primary topic redirects of an existing disambiguation article
2. Advise and/or education to all parties regarding ongoing consensus building
3. If there has been any oversight or misunderstandings by, or caused by, myself


Ignoring the numerous uncivil issues appearing on the Talkpage, the view is using material like this is legalistically quite correct regarding use of non-copyright material, but in my opinion, it exceed any 'fair use' of material in which it is almost completely paraphrased and could even be considered as plagiarism.
==== Summary of dispute by Iciebath ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

=== NDIS discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>

== Taiwan ==

{{DR case status|closed}}
{{drn filing editor|103.190.179.16|16:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|Closed at this time for at least three reasons. The less important reason is that the filing unregistered editor has not notified the other editors. If that were the only problem, I would remind them to notify the other editors. Second, the listing of eleven registered editors, two indefinitely blocked editors, and two unregistered editors is not likely to be a workable group. Third, the persistence of the issue of how to refer to Taiwan is probably a subject for an ] rather than moderated discussion. If either the filing unregistered editor or another editor wants assistance in formulating an RFC that is neutrally worded and includes all of the reasonable options, and if a new DRN request is filed, I am willing to open a DRN thread for the purpose of formulating the RFC. ] (]) 17:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

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

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Taiwan}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Remsense}}
* {{User|Slatersteven}}
* {{User|103.190.179.16}}
* {{User|Silence of Lambs}}
* {{User|Chipmunkdavis}}
* {{User|Sheherherhers}}
* {{User|ZeehanLin}}
* {{User|NewYearGOT}}
* {{User|Butterdiplomat}}
* {{User|Pataya2527}}
* {{User|Fyunck(click)}}
* {{User|The Four Deuces}}
* {{User|108.53.191.58}}
* {{User|Horse Eye's Back}}
* {{User|Phlar}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

There are ] whether Taiwan a country and it is quite complex. Although there are words to show the complexity in the top para, some Misplaced Pages editors simplifies it artificially and describes it a country in the first sentence and the short description so that it seems like WP stands with who stand for "country" and it may violate ]. They refused to edit because there is a counsensus, but the consensus formation process above looks like the result of ] and they didn't ] As there is a more accptable description like "de facto country", which has no dispute in the summary of ].


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>


]
]
]
]
]


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>


Could someone clarify and advise how and to what extent such external material can be used in Misplaced Pages pages?
Incorporate the opinions of everyone, not just those who want to maintain the status quo.


Knowing this would be able to improve the page and remove some of the text it doesn't seem relevant.
==== Summary of dispute by Remsense ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by Slatersteven ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by 103.190.179.16 ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by Silence of Lambs ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by Chipmunkdavis ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by Sheherherhers ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by ZeehanLin ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by NewYearGOT ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by Butterdiplomat ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by Pataya2527 ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by Fyunck(click) ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by 108.53.191.58 ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by Horse Eye's Back ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


==== Summary of dispute by Phlar ==== ==== Summary of dispute by The Drover's Wife ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


=== Taiwan discussion === === Old Government House, Parramatta discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
{{DRN archive bottom}}


=== Zeroth statement by moderator (Old Government House) ===
== Talk:2024 United_States_presidential_election# Lead_section_of_2024_United_States_presidential_election ==
I am ready to act as the moderator in this dispute. Firstly, I would like to ask the editors to read ] and state their acceptance of it. This ruleset allows back-and-forth discussion, however, I would like to remind you to stay civil. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article; we won't be discussing conduct issues.


It is my understanding that {{u|The Drover's Wife}} wants the current state of the article to remain. Is this correct? I would like to ask {{u|Itchycoocoo}} what changes do you want ] and why? ] (]) 11:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{DR case status}}
<!-- ] 00:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1732237065}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Goodtiming8871|00:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)}}


=== Zeroth statements by editors (Old Government House) ===
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>


Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Firstly, thank you for taking this issue up.


I do accept '''Misplaced Pages DRN Rule B''', and will avoid unnecessary interaction with the other editor.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Talk:2024 United_States_presidential_election#(RFC)_Lead_section_of_2024_United_States_presidential_election}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Goodtiming8871}}
* {{User|Qutlook}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


You state "It is my understanding that The Drover's Wife wants the current state of the article to remain." I don't think that is the case, and as others are pointed out, there are many irrelevant statements relating to the subject, which can be used elsewhere or in other pages.
Summary: Can an RfC for improving neutrality in a major US presidential election article be reopened after it was hastily closed by a specific user?


I will be very happy to do such culling.
1. There were many opinions that the biased article in the US presidential election article should be improved.


But the issue is about using non-copyright text 'free use' to such an extent that it is place there near its entirety. It appears that any material that is deemed free use without copyright under CC – BY licenses can be used within Misplaced Pages pages. This is acknowledged.
2. An RFC for improving neutrality was started, and when opinions for improving neutrality came in, it was hastily closed less than two days after the RFC was created.


However, elsewhere under paraphrase, copypaste, and plagiarism, it suggests that the amount of text using whole webpages should not extensively used by Misplaced Pages editors. e.g. According to ] "''With the exceptions of short quotations from copyright text, and text copied from a free source without a copyright, text from other sources may not be copied into Misplaced Pages. Doing so is a copyright violation and constitutes plagiarism.''"
3. I would appreciate it if you could help improve Misplaced Pages articles by reopening the relevant RfC so that the opinions of users who want to address neutrality can be posted.


I think the issue is a grey area. Using portions of an external webpage, whether a copyright or not, should be adopted sparingly and not cart blanch as example by this article.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>


In my opinion, the entire adopt the text should be scrapped, and should be written by a Misplaced Pages editor, but still extracting some of the CC – BY material either in quotes, as suggested in ] "''With the exceptions of short quotations from copyright text, and text copied from a free source without a copyright, text from other sources may not be copied into Misplaced Pages. Doing so is a copyright violation and constitutes plagiarism.''"
*The reason for {{tq|initiating the RFC}} was that several users on the Talk Page continued to raise issues with the neutrality of the Lead part of the document, but other users demanded that it be left as a list of {{tq|only one candidate's list criticisms}}, so this was attempted to be resolved through the RfC
*Talked via the RFC page and resolved the issued raised by another user.
*I also updated the summary history from the beginning of the RFC to clarify the issues.


'''Q: My question to resolve this dispute is how much of CC – BY license usage of another site can be used in a Misplaced Pages page? Is 100% acceptable, say 50%, 20%, or maybe just 5%?'''


If it is 100% acceptable, then the pasting of all of this material is acceptable to Misplaced Pages standards. However, looking at the other Misplaced Pages policies, it seems to me that significant section taken from any website is needed, really should be placed in quotation marks, and used to support statements made in secondary sources written by Users.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>


The alternative is to just place it as a simple external link, for readers who want to read the more extensive knowledge in more detail.
I would appreciate it if you could help improve Misplaced Pages articles by suggestion of resolution for this issues.


Based on the discussion and debate, if I do do this, I fear that it will simply be reverted to the original text in the alternate website. I would also like to add some new information that is occurred in the last year or two, has there been significant developments in the building and its grounds. Using the non-copyright source means it will have to be modified fairly severely and still read as if it were encyclopaedic.
E.g. Create another RFC so that users can post comments addressing neutrality.


Perhaps the other editor in this dispute may have some useful suggestions on improving this article with these thoughts in mind. They are clearly an experienced editor, so any ideas would be welcome.
==== Summary of dispute by Qutlooker ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


Thanks.
=== Talk:2024 United_States_presidential_election#(RFC)_Lead_section_of_2024_United_States_presidential_election ===
] (]) 06:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>

Latest revision as of 06:29, 25 December 2024

Informal venue for resolving content disputes "WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.
Skip to Table of Contents
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) Shortcuts

    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 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.

    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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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
    Dragon Age: The Veilguard New Sariel Xilo (t) 19 days, 10 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 2 hours Sariel Xilo (t) 1 days, 1 hours
    Autism New Oolong (t) 4 days, 15 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 hours
    Sri Lankan Vellalar New Kautilyapundit (t) 3 days, 1 hours None n/a Kautilyapundit (t) 3 days, 1 hours
    Kamaria Ahir Closed Nlkyair012 (t) 1 days, 10 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 hours
    Old Government House, Parramatta In Progress Itchycoocoo (t) 23 hours Kovcszaln6 (t) 19 hours Itchycoocoo (t) 21 minutes

    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 06:46, 25 December 2024 (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.


    Purge this page to refreshIf 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

    Dragon Age: The Veilguard

    – New discussion. Filed by Sariel Xilo on 20:06, 5 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

    1) Disagreement on if WP:SYNTH is occurring in the topline summary sentences. The arguments for including these sentences is that one sentence in the lead is an accurate summary of the article's reception section & follows MOS:INTRO/Misplaced Pages:Summary style & the second sentence is in a reception section paragraph & follows WP:VG/REC advice for opening sentences. The argument against is that SYNTH is occurring & these summary sentences should not be included. 2) Rewriting a sentence on review bombing to remove context on negative reviews after a November talk page discussion came to consensus. 3) Other more minor disagreements about exact prose.

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

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    An independent review of the prose to ensure it is following policy as it seems the discussion has stalled out & to help us reach a consensus on the main content disagreements. The back and forth has led to the article being under a full lock until the dispute is resolved.

    Summary of dispute by BMWF

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

    Summary of dispute by Wikibenboy94

    The edits and justifications on the article by BMWF, who appears to have an ardent approach to following certain rules and guidelines, I have found particularly questionable. In my opinion:

    1. The aforementioned summaries, in both the lead and body, of points in the reception section do not amount to WP:SYNTH, and reception summaries in leads for countless articles would be removed if it did.

    2. Including the Steam player base numbers is not relevant for the lead, at least not in place of the lack of official sales figures, and where the sales section largely consists of theorising how much Dragon Age: Veilguard has sold.

    3. Identifying each platform for the game that was given a Metacritic consensus of "generally favorable" is redundant when the consensuses are the same for all the platforms; they should only be identified if there are differing consensuses, or at most should be written as "for all platforms".

    4. The invoking of WP:SAID while changing the wording so that a critic of the game "said" instead of "thought" and "referred to" instead of "criticized" I don't find warranted for what was initially written (note there are other instances of the words "thought" and "criticized" still remaining in the section). Similarly, the initial wording of "offensive reviews" I feel is more neutral and less loaded than "abusive reviews".

    5. I am less invested in how the review bombing is outlined, though do think some mention should be made on how Steam requires proof that you have played the game first before reviewing it, unlike Metacritic (or vice versa). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Dragon Age: The Veilguard discussion

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

    To expand a bit a on the listing, I believe that at this point both @Wikibenboy94 and I agree that there are no WP:SYNTH issues in the topline summary sentences removed by @BMWF in this edit and agree on restoring them which BMWF opposes. I also agree with Wikibenboy94 on points 2-4 that they outlined in their summary of the dispute.

    In terms of the review bomb sentence, I think the following compromise version should satisfy the request for clarity on Steam users (bold is the text added by BMWF) while restoring context (underlined) that was in the November consensus on this issue: Veilguard was also subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative, the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam, which requires users to play the game before leaving a review, have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove offensive reviews. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)

    I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two participants want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and state that you agree to the rules (if you want moderated discussion). The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    Quick clarity question on DRN Rule A - my assumption is that the rule is to not edit war over the disputed content but updates/improvements in other sections are fine. This question occurred to me after the fact (I corrected a template in the awards table which is unrelated to the dispute but was a mistake I made). Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Clarification by Moderator (Dragon Age)

    I generally prefer to have the parties avoid editing any part of the article, at least until all of the parties agree on what the area of dispute is. Since the other editors have not yet stated what they think the issues are, I am not relaxing the rule against editing the article, except with regard to the change that User:Sariel Xilo is asking about, that was already made. In that case, the principle of no harm, no foul applies to the change that has already been made. Leave the change in. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

    Zeroth statements by editors (Dragon Age)

    I agree to DRN Rule A. As outlined above, I would like to restore the topline summary sentences in the lead & reception section (ie. the sentences removed in the lead in this edit & in the reception in this edit), restore other word changes as outlined by Wikibenboy94's in their points 2-4, & I would like use the above proposed compromise version of the review bomb prose. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    First statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)

    Do two editors want moderated discussion? The filing editor has said that they agree to DRN Rule A and has made a statement about what they want to change in the article. Another editor made a statement at the beginning, but has not agreed to DRN Rule A. If they agree to those rules, I will open moderated discussion, and we will try to work on the various differences. If they do not either agree to the rules or make some other statement, I will close this discussion as declined due to lack of response.

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've pinged the two other editors in case they only watched this noticeboard for a week & haven't seen that a moderator opened the discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have read and agree to DRN Rule A. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    First statements by editors (Dragon Age)

    Second statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)

    It appears that two editors have agreed to moderated discussion, but that they have mostly agreed with each other and disagreed with the third editor, who has not responded on this noticeboard. Their statements of what they want to change in the article are not entirely clear, at least not to me. So what I will do at this point is to ask each editor to prepare draft versions of the sections that they think should be changed. I don't see a discussion in the current text of the article about review bombing, so that we can read a description of the review bombing.

    I will comment that the article is no longer fully protected. The full protection expired, and the article is now semi-protected. However, I have asked that the editors in this dispute not edit the article while we are discussing its improvement.

    I don't understand what the synthesis issue is, and I don't want to read through the history and previous discussion to determine what the synthesis issue is. So please state more specifically what the synthesis issue is if you want it considered, or let me infer it from the rewritten sections, or I might ignore it, which might be what you want. It seems that the two editors who have responded do not see a synthesis issue, so it can be disregarded if it isn't mentioned and the third editor doesn't describe it.

    Please provide your rewritten sections.

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Second statements by editors (Dragon Age)

    Proposed text:

    Lead

    Dragon Age: The Veilguard released for PlayStation 5, Windows, and Xbox Series X/S on October 31, 2024. After release Dragon Age: The Veilguard topped Steam charts and broke BioWare's concurrent player record. The game received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its cast, representation of sexual minority characters, graphics, and level design, but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, and combat. It was nominated for Game of the Year at the Golden Joystick Awards and Innovation in Accessibility at The Game Awards.

    Reception

    ¶1 Dragon Age: The Veilguard received "generally favorable" reviews from critics for its Windows, Xbox Series X/S, and PlayStation 5 versions according to the review aggregator website Metacritic. OpenCritic determined that 68% of critics recommended the game. Veilguard was subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative, the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam, which requires users to play the game before leaving a review, have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove offensive reviews.

    Reception ¶2 is not under dispute but here for additional context if needed.

    ¶2 Hayes Madsen of Rolling Stone called Veilguard a "fresh start for the franchise" with the game "practically a soft reset". Leana Hafer for IGN similarly commented that the "story feels like both a send-off and a soft reboot, in a way, which was paradoxically a bit refreshing and disappointing at the same time". She also found it "cool" that the Inquisitor returns as "a fairly important character". Andy Bickerton of NPR viewed the game as a "well-executed action RPG". However, he called the decision to not include prior player narrative choices a "letdown", noting that "it's easy to see how this squandered potential, along with the tonal inconsistencies, could have arisen out of Veilguard's near-decade of troubled production". Lauren Morton of PC Gamer thought a downside of perceived streamlining and eliminating the "most common RPG frictions" is that it "can feel more action adventure than RPG at moments".

    ¶3 Critics were mixed on the game's story. Matt Purslow from IGN thought that Veilguard was "at war with itself", as he felt that the game was not interested in exploring the franchise's past despite being its first direct sequel, and that the game sidelined major characters such as Solas and Varric. Malindy Hetfeld of The Guardian criticized the "surprisingly mediocre" writing in Veilguard, describing the protagonist Rook as more of a witty observer than a "person with opinions". She also found the "comically evil" new villainous gods disappointing compared to the more "compelling" Solas. Hafer opined that Veilguard has "weird" pacing, and that the overaching plot "is nothing particularly outstanding in its overall structure", with the only interesting factor being Solas. Madsen argued that Solas was "a secondary protagonist", with the game focusing on his choices, their impact, "and how your journey as Rook mirrors" his journey. Ash Parrish of The Verge appreciated how Solas' arc subverted her desire to kill him despite longstanding animosity; she praised BioWare for crafting "his story arc in a way that didn't soften his actions as villain backstories typically do, but in a way that I felt compelled to make a different choice". Reviewers were divided over how consequential player choices were to the narrative, with some finding major decisions "few and far between".

    The rest of the reception section for context on lead summary. While it uses similar summary style sentences as above (see bolded text), it is not under dispute.

    ¶4 Madsen praised Veilguard for its attention to detail when showcasing the player's iteration of Rook and the game's companions, calling the characters "wonderfully written and well integrated into the plot". Todd Harper of Polygon emphasized the companions as the heart of the game, noting that they were "weird and idiosyncratic in the best ways". Kazuma Hashimoto of Them commented that at a surface level companions feel like "fantasy clichés and tropes", but with earned trust reveal "mundane moments" that make them feel closer to "normal people"; he also praised both the romance and non-romance options for interacting with companions. Hafer appreciated that companions are each "stars of their own story" with "complex, memorable, likable, distinct personalities", but was disappointed that in combat they felt more like extensions of the player character. Parrish enjoyed the "fun banter" of companions, and praised the romance options in Veilguard, highlighting that unlike previous Dragon Age games, it explicitly indicates when the player becomes locked into a romance path. Conversely, Oliver Brandt of Sports Illustrated viewed the choice to make all companions romanceable regardless of player gender expression as "a small step back" from other Dragon Age games. Harvey Randall of PC Gamer highlighted a lack of nuance in Rook's romantic dialogue if a player chooses to discuss Rook's gender identity. Morton thought companions lacked nuance and individual characterizations, noting that "good people don't make great characters". She further criticized the lack of a "functional mechanism for disapproval" and interpersonal group conflicts.

    ¶5 Veilguard generally received praise for its inclusive character creator and representation of transgender and non-binary characters. Alyssa Mora of IGN emphasized the character creator's "body diversity" where "the options feel almost endless". Both Robin Bea of Inverse and Brandt commended Taash's story arc, with Brandt noting while BioWare has previously "touched on queer stories", Vanguard "goes one step further, unashamedly and unabashedly calling one of its most compelling characters nonbinary". Bea acknowledged the "smart writing" in Veilguard in addressing transgender representation. However, she critiqued the use of a coming out narrative as "low-hanging fruit", and thought Rook's gender identity was not fully explored beyond Taash's storyline and so did not "always feel like a fully-actualized trans character". Stacey Henley of TheGamer appreciated the deliberate use of modern language in Taash's story in comparison to Inquisition's Krem, though noted the language has been contentious with audiences as potentially "immersion breaking". Randall was more critical, noting how Veilguard "both failed and succeeded" in the narrative aspects focused on non-binary characters, and that the overall "scattershot, clumsy, and unpolished" writing impacts the "use of queer language in a fantasy context". They found the lack of a fictional etymology connecting the word to the cultures of Thedas problematic, reflecting wider story issues as the game seems "barely interested in the politics of its own setting".

    ¶6 Critics enjoyed Veilguard's graphics and level design but were divided on the game's combat. Bickerton felt that Veilguard's strongest feature was its action gameplay, writing "mastering combat and party composition is a thoroughly rewarding experience from start to finish". He also highlighted the game's "accessibility and difficulty settings" as being welcoming for more casual players. Hetfeld viewed Veilguard's combat as functional but repetitive, without "much room for strategy", and similar to numerous other games. Hafer called the boss fights the highlight of combat. Parrish praised the combo system, the new elemental effects on weapons, and the ability for player mages to switch between melee and ranged for a "kinetic, almost chaotic energy". However, she critiqued the length of encounters from the "wave after wave of tanky enemies with multiple health bars". Harper thought the combat was "hit or miss", and that the combo system was less complex than Inquisition and the Mass Effect games. Hafer stated that the game has "visual splendor", and Harper called it "graphically gorgeous". Parrish opined that the "companions and environments are arresting in their design". Bickerton thought the level design was an improvement on Inquisition's "bland open zones", and praised side quests for their depth and the rewarding of exploration with "useful loot and impactful plot points". Morton viewed each area's "incredible visual design" as a standout feature of Veilguard. She found it was better off for removing Inquisition's "giant zones" and having "more constrained maps of coiled corridors and clearings".

    References

    1. "Dragon Age: The Veilguard (Xbox Series X Critic Reviews)". Metacritic. Retrieved December 4, 2024.
    2. "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Reviews". OpenCritic. Retrieved November 12, 2024.
    3. "Metacritic responds after Dragon Age: The Veilguard review bombing". Eurogamer.net. 2024-11-05. Retrieved 2024-11-06.
    4. "Dragon Age The Veilguard is getting review bombed, and now Metacritic has something to say". PCGamesN. 2024-11-05. Retrieved 2024-11-06.
    5. Watson, Philip (2024-11-05). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard's Poor Review Bombing Leads To Metacritic Response". CGMagazine. Retrieved 2024-11-06.
    6. ^ Madsen, Hayes (2024-10-28). "'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Is a Return to Form for a Beloved RPG Franchise". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2024-10-29.
    7. ^ Hafer, Leana (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Review". IGN. Retrieved 2024-10-29.
    8. ^ Bickerton, Andy (October 28, 2024). "Tonally inconsistent 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' is still BioWare's best action game". NPR. Retrieved November 29, 2024.
    9. ^ Morton, Lauren (October 28, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard review". PC Gamer. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
    10. Purslow, Matt (November 9, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Is at War With Itself". IGN. Retrieved November 10, 2024.
    11. ^ Hetfeld, Malindy (October 28, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard review — a good RPG, but an underwhelming Dragon Age game". The Guardian. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
    12. ^ Parrish, Ash (2024-11-28). "The hardest part of Dragon Age: The Veilguard is making a choice". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    13. ^ Parrish, Ash (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard starts slow but strong". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-10-30.
    14. ^ Hashimoto, Kazuma (2024-10-28). "I Played 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' and Got Myself Stuck in a Gay Love Triangle". Them. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    15. ^ Harper, Todd (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the friend group simulator we've been waiting for". Polygon. Retrieved 2024-10-30.
    16. ^ Brandt, Oliver (2024-10-31). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the first triple-A game to handle gender identity the right way". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    17. ^ Randall, Harvey (2024-11-13). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard's leap forward in trans inclusion comes from a heartfelt place, but its problems left me feeling frustrated, angry, and tired". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    18. ^ Morton, Lauren (2024-11-15). "The Veilguard is the first Dragon Age game where my companions don't care enough about anything to argue with me". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    19. ^ Mora, Alyssa (September 19, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Preview: BioWare Finally Nails The Character Creator I've Always Wanted". IGN. Retrieved November 30, 2024.
    20. ^ Bea, Robin (2024-11-06). "'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Makes Me Feel Seen As a Trans Player, But Still Disappointed". Inverse. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    21. ^ Henley, Stacey (2024-11-06). "Why Dragon Age: The Veilguard Uses The Term 'Non-Binary'". TheGamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    22. Puc, Samantha (2024-11-03). "This 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' companion's story ruined me in the best way". The Mary Sue. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    23. Marshall, Cass (2024-11-01). "How role-playing a trans or nonbinary Rook works in Dragon Age: The Veilguard". Polygon. Retrieved 2024-11-30.

    In the lead and reception ¶1/¶3, I bolded prose which I think should be included & did strikethroughs on what I think should be removed. The lead & reception ¶3 summary sentences were removed for being synth although I disagree with that assessment. It would be helpful to have an outside opinion review them. Additionally, reception ¶1 (in bold & underline) includes the review bomb sentence that was part of the original November consensus that BMWF argued against; when raising synth concerns, they removed it again. I believe it adds important context as news outlets contrasted the two platforms in articles focused on what was occurring at Metacritic (ie. the negative user reviews on Metacritic were very different from the user reviews on Steam). Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    I fully support all the proposed changes Sariel Xilo has outlined above and have no further issues to raise, so a draft version from me will be redundant. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Third statement by moderator (Dragon Age)

    The two editors who have responded to my request to provide a draft of changes to the article are in agreement on revised language. The other editor has not commented because they have not edited in the past week. I will suspend the rule against editing the article to allow the edits for which there is a rough local consensus to be made. If there is no objection to the edits within a few days, I will close this case as resolved. If there is any objection, we will resume discussion, but will leave the revised edits in place.

    Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for taking a look at the draft. Just to confirm, I should go ahead and implement the above in the article? Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Third statements by editors (Dragon Age)

    Autism

    – New discussion. Filed by Oolong on 15:46, 20 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

    Autism, in the wider world, is subject to a very deep disagreement about what it is, and what it means for society.

    On Misplaced Pages, this schism (or paradigm shift) is manifesting in an interesting way, because the root of the disagreement is essentially about the degree to which it is correct or helpful to view autism as a medical issue - a disorder - at all.

    Misplaced Pages has quite detailed guidelines for what to do within medicine, or outside of medicine, but it is less clear what to do when the dispute is about whether something is best thought of as a health issue, and/or something else (for example: a different way of thinking and experiencing the world, a disability, an identity etc.) There are many implications for this distinction, including (to some extent) what we include and (strictly) what counts as a reliable source for any particular piece of information. Many scientists have taken various positions on the issue of neurodiversity, as have autistic and other neurodivergent people, practitioners, family members and writers (all of these overlap greatly). The concept has greatly risen in prominence in recent years.

    This underlying dispute manifests in many different ways, across many autism-related articles, often giving rise to tensions, and incredulity on more than one side, when people refuse to accept things that apparently seem obvious to the other side. These go back many years, but have reached a relatively heated pitch in recent weeks, with a number of editors making efforts to change the main autism entry in various ways.

    A major point of contention is around systemic bias, relating to what I would call testimonial injustice. Who should be listened to, when it comes to what people should be reading about autism? What exactly should we balancing when we weigh viewpoints "in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources"?

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

    Talk:Autism Talk:Autism#Autism and disability Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics. Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions] Related: Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_228#Applied_behavior_analysis

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    There are tensions and disagreements for which the resolution is not obvious, and neither is the route to a resolution; much of this has run in circles around what different sources do or do not demonstrate, and which Misplaced Pages guidelines apply, where, and how. There has also some agressive argumentation and editing which seems unhelpful. Outside input on how to work towards a balanced conclusion - conceivably even something like a consensus - could be helpful.

    Summary of dispute by Димитрий Улянов Иванов

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

    The central tension in the dispute revolves around how autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterised and the prominence given to this characterisation. Some editors have argued for either reducing, minimising, or entirely removing references to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity.

    This proposed reframing of the article stands in stark contrast to the scientific consensus around the world. As regards the scientific consensus, the validity and relevance of the terminology for ASD has been established by standardised diagnostic criteria (e.g., the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and American Psychological Association's DSM-5), the developers of evidence-based national guidelines (e.g., the UK National Institute for Health & Care Excellence and the European Society for Child & Adolescent Psychiatry), and consensus statements endorsing these guidelines (e.g. IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders). This is further substantiated by other peer-reviewed, secondary sources such as systematic reviews. For further details, see list of quoted references.

    Since the article pertains to health where readers may rely on its information to make health-related decisions, restricting these high-quality references can have profound repercussions. Some editors have cited a series of blog posts and advocacy papers as sources supporting the notion that a neurodiversity-only perspective, which decouples ASD from these terms, is more, or at least comparably, appropriate for the article because of its publicity and acceptance amongst a subset of autistic advocates. However, it has been argued that relying on these sources is problematic for several reasons. First, Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines consider peer-reviewed sources as the most reliable when available; that blog posts are generally discouraged; and that it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is considered factual or pseudoscience. Second, while some advocacy sources are peer-reviewed, they are usually advocating for a future change that is not currently established. The dispute has since increasingly been over how Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines can be correctly interpreted.

    In my view, a failure to properly reflect the international scientific classification in this article will contribute to the stigmatisation of ASD and its treatments to millions of people around the world. Your decision may disproportionately mislead the poorest and highest risk of readers due to economic and educational disadvantages. This will increase morbidity, create chaos in families and drive up health care costs.

    While considering each reply, I urge reviewers to carefully consider and weigh in the scientific evidence in regards to their recommendations.

    Summary of dispute by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan

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

    Yes, as User:Oolong says, some of the dispute seems to concern epistemic injustice concerns and how to interpret standards of evidence here.

    There is also definitely a strong debate going on over whether, per established standards of evidence for wikipedia and for medical claims within wikipedia, there is in fact a consensus of reputable sources (especially recent sources) supporting a traditional medical understanding of autism, or whether per such standards of evidence there appears to be a division between traditional medical and neurodiversity-aligned perspectives on autism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan (talkcontribs) 20:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    I would like to reiterate that any drop in evidential standards could lead to the inclusion of debunked and dangerous practices, particularly as at least one editor has revealed themselves to be sympathetic toward facilitated communication - an anti-autistic practice which is often falsely claimed to be supported from a neurodiversity perspective - the inclusion of which has already been litigated on Misplaced Pages. The medical model being poor does not automatically lead to the populist online autism movement being good. Autistic people deserve the same standards as everyone else. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:F104:371A:5F87:5238 (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't believe anybody is advocating for reduced evidential standards. The question is about which standards apply to what.
    My position on FC is that it is a dubious practice, worryingly open to abuse, but that we need to be wary of over-generalising from the evidence available on it (and that it is worth looking at studies publised since this was last 'litigated on Misplaced Pages'). Oolong (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Summary of dispute by HarmonyA8

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

    Summary of dispute by TempusTacet

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

    Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing

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

    I think that only the first three editors in this list (Oolong, Димитрий Улянов Иванов, and Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan) are very relevant. However, I'm willing to help (e.g., to provide assistance with the {{MEDRS evaluation}} of sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Summary of dispute by FactOrOpinion

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

    The conflict seems to be very longstanding, and I've only participated in the discussion during the last week, so my understanding of the conflict is very incomplete. A significant piece of it is that there are contrasting approaches to thinking about autism — a medical model and a neurodiversity perspective — and the article currently emphasizes the first of those, which makes it feel unbalanced to others. There are differences of opinion about which views/content are significant (in the NPOV sense) and therefore should be represented in the article; and among the various groups who might seek out the article (e.g., autistic people, family members, allies, different kinds of professionals), some will not find much content, even though there are reliable sources for it. For example, there's little about the lived experiences of people with autism, and some content that one might expect to be touched on with a link to further info (e.g., autistic meltdowns) are totally absent. Arguably, the text is not as accessible to as broad an array of readers as it should be. Some of the conflict seems linked to the role of scholarship. Everyone recognizes that when scholarly sources are available, they're usually the best sources; however, some may think that if content cannot be sourced to a scholarly source, then it shouldn't be included. I recognize that MEDRS guides sources for biomedical info; but some of the relevant info for the article is not biomedical. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    I am willing to try dispute resolution, but I have no experience with it. I have read the rules introduced by Robert McClenon below, as well as DRN Rule A, and I agree to these rules. It's not clear to me when I should move to the Zeroeth statements by editors section rather than responding here. Once that's clarified, I'll respond to Robert McClenon's questions in the appropriate section.
    Important note: I have no expertise in the subject. I ended up at the Autism talk page because an editor who is autistic posted a concern at the Teahouse about the imbalance in the article and felt that their Talk concerns were not being given due weight, and I hoped that I could be a bit helpful on the talk page. Given the breadth of the disagreement and my lack of expertise, it will be hard for me to suggest specific changes in the article, though I can make more general comments (e.g., comments about whether certain content might be introduced in order to address the needs of diverse readers who'd come to the article seeking information, whether the text is likely to be accessible to such readers, whether I think a given WP:PAG is being correctly interpreted). My guess is that I will not be as active in the discussion as the editors with subject matter knowledge / editors who have a longer history in the dispute, and it may be that my comments will simply be too general to be helpful and that I should therefore bow out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Summary of dispute by 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0

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

    Summary of dispute by GreenMeansGo

    Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
    Comment in your own section. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Note: Editor is "done with the discussion" and will not be participating. --Oolong (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Autism discussion

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


    Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Autism)

    I am ready to assess whether moderated discussion will be useful to improve the article on Autism and to resolve any content disputes. If we do use moderated discussion, this is likely to be a long mediation, and I will probably have to develop a new set of rules. I know that the rules will include;

    • Be civil. Civility is required everywhere in Misplaced Pages, and is essential to resolving content disputes.
    • Be concise. Long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not always convey useful information. Remember that an editor who sees a wall of text is likely to ignore it.
    • Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions. (I will be the moderator.) Address your answers to the moderator and to the community.
    • Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so discuss the article or proposed changes to the article.
    • Do not make any reports to conduct forums while moderated discussion is in progress. One objective of moderated discussion is to avoid discussions of conduct and to resolve content issues first, because often the conduct issues resolve themselves when the content dispute is resolved.

    In the meantime, my first question for each editor is whether you would like to try moderated discussion (mediation) in order to resolve content disputes. If you answer yes, I have a two-part question and another question. The purpose of moderated discussion, or of any dispute resolution, is to improve an article. I will split my usual introductory question into two parts. First, please state what changes, if any, you want to make to the lede section of the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change. We can go into more detail about those changes later. Third, please provide links to any previous discussions of content or conduct issues about the topic that have not been resolved. I just want a list of all of the previous discussions. Do not comment on them, because I am trying to focus the discussion by asking my usual introductory question (in a two-part form).

    I don't yet know whether DRN is the right forum to resolve disputes about autism, but I will try to make that assessment based on the answers to the above questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, I would like to try moderated discussion. Are you looking for responses as replies here, or in the section below (or...)?
    I've never participated in a dispute resolution procedure here (aside from the one linked above which was closed because I didn't get a notification, and didn't know to refresh the page daily, and which I didn't know how to reopen). Also, like many of the parties to this dispute, I am autistic. Explicit instructions will therefore be welcome! Thank you.
    Answering your other questions will be complicated, because what really needs to happen involves rather extensive changes. Even small changes have persistently been blocked by parties taking one particular position on this, so moving on to questions around the bigger changes required has repeatedly been stymied.
    I feel that I should flag up two essays that I've written, provoked by past discussions around all of this, to clarify my position - I hope you agree that this is appropriate here. The first is Autism and Scientism (published in the Middletown Centre for Autism Research Journal) and Autism, Misplaced Pages and Epistemic Injustice, posted here and published in Thinking Person's Guide to Autism. You are under no obligation to read these or take them into consideration, but they might help you to understand some of the issues at stake if you do so. Oolong (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Zeroth statements by editors (Autism)

    Sri Lankan Vellalar

    – New discussion. Filed by Kautilyapundit on 05:44, 22 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

    A user repeatedly adds misleading edits to the caste article. In the section on mythological origins, they introduced misleading edits. If the source states "A," they modify it to say "B" to support their narrative. This constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The sources should specifically discuss the origin of the Sri Lankan Vellalar, but they fail to do so, instead recounting tales of other caste groups. There are other sources discussing the mythological origin of Vellalars, but he dismisses them and continues adding misleading edits with synthesized sources.

    Additionally, the user seems to be using AI to counter my responses. They don't fully understand my points and keep repeating the same arguments in different contexts.

    We also sought a third opinion, but that editor doesn't appear to be active on the talk page. He has no idea on south asian group articles and its complex editing rules.

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

    Talk:Sri_Lankan_Vellalar
    

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    This noticeboard might have more professional editors who are knowledgeable about South Asian groups and communities. I believe they can resolve the dispute by cross-verifying our points.

    Summary of dispute by Luigi Boy

    First and foremost, I would like to thank user Kautilyapundit for initiating this dispute. This discussion will undoubtedly help clarify and resolve the concerns at hand. From my perspective, there are two distinct issues that need to be addressed:

    - Terminology differences

    - The inclusion of the mythology section

    Terminology Differences

    The root of the terminology issue stems from my edit, where I restored information that had been removed without adequate justification or proof that the cited sources were WP:FRINGE.

    To provide clarity, I included a sentence explaining the transliteration of the term Vellalar. Specifically:

    - Tamil: வேளாளர், romanized: Vēḷāḷar refers to the context found in ancient Tamil literature like the Akananuru.

    - Tamil: வெள்ளாளர், romanized: Veḷḷāḷar represents the caste name in contemporary usage. This distinction adds context about the societies mentioned in classical Tamil texts and the evolution of terminology over time. The confusion arises mainly because the parent caste Vellalar often uses this term Tamil: வேளாளர், romanized: Vēḷāḷar, whereas modern usage differentiates the two terms.

    Inclusion of the Mythology Section

    The second issue is the inclusion (or exclusion) of the mythology section. The claim that I oppose adding more mythology is a misrepresentation of my stance. I've never dismissed other mythological references. If additional, well-sourced myths exist, I encourage to include those as well.

    The argument for removing the existing mythology section hinges on the fact that the parent article does not discuss this topic. However, this overlooks the fact that the mythology in question is specific to Sri Lankan Vellalars and does not pertain to the parent caste. Removing the section entirely would erase relevant, sourced context unique to this sub-caste.

    Third-Party Opinion

    Fortunately, user AirshipJungleman29 has provided a third opinion on this matter. They rightly suggested that if the sources in question are deemed WP:FRINGE or not WP:RS, the concerned user should raise the issue on WP:RSN. To date, no such dispute has been initiated, leaving the claim unsubstantiated.

    I hope this explanation addresses the concerns raised by Kautilyapundit and provides clarity on the rationale behind my edits. I am open to further discussions and look forward to collaborative resolutions to improve the article.

    Sri Lankan Vellalar discussion

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

    Kamaria Ahir

    – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Nlkyair012 on 20:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC).
    Closed as also pending in another forum, the Reliable Source Noticeboard. DRN does not accept a dispute that is also pending in another content or conduct forum, and RSN is a content forum. When there are two types of issues about one article, it is not practical to try to resolve them in two forums at the same time, because often issues overlap, and because the resolution in one forum might change what is being discussed in the other forum. Finish the discussion at RSN and decide whether there are any remaining content issues that are consistent with what has been decided about reliability of sources. If there are any remaining content issues, resume discussion on the article talk page. If the subsequent discussion on the article talk page is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 25 December 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

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    The dispute revolves around the use of Raj-era sources, specifically K.S. Singh’s "Anthropological Survey of India," in the article on "Kamaria Ahir." One editor, Nlkyair012, is advocating for the removal of these sources, arguing that they are outdated and unreliable. However, these historical sources, particularly those from the British Raj, are still cited in reputable modern academic works as valuable historical references for caste dynamics and structures. The issue also includes the inclusion of living people's names without proper self-identification, which violates Misplaced Pages's Biographies of Living Persons policy (BLP). The goal of this dispute resolution is to determine whether the Raj-era sources and K.S. Singh’s work should be retained or replaced, and to ensure that the article adheres to Misplaced Pages's guidelines on neutrality and verifiability.

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

    ]

    ]

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    The dispute can be resolved by carefully reviewing the reliability of Raj-era sources and K.S. Singh's work, considering modern academic citations that rely on these sources, and determining whether they meet Misplaced Pages's standards of verifiability. Additionally, we can remove any names of living people to comply with the BLP policy while maintaining the historical and sociological content that is well-sourced. Collaboration on improving the article is key, and I suggest that experts in anthropology or caste studies provide input on the appropriateness of these sources for this article.

    The current dispute is about the inclusion of Raj-era sources, particularly from the British colonial period, in the article "(https://en.wikipedia.org/Kamaria_Ahir)." I believe these sources are valuable for understanding the historical context of caste structures in India, despite their age. While I acknowledge that (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Age_matters) advises caution with older sources, it does not outright prohibit their use, especially when they provide unique historical insights that modern works may lack. Raj-era ethnographic works were written by government officials and are often cited in contemporary research for their firsthand observations, making them relevant in understanding caste dynamics.

    A central issue in this dispute is the use of K.S. Singh’s "(https://en.wikipedia.org/Anthropological_Survey_of_India)" (ASI), which I have cited in the article. The ASI, although created under government supervision, is a significant academic resource that continues to be referenced in Indian academia. While some may question its modern reliability, it remains an authoritative source, and dismissing it entirely without further scrutiny undermines its contribution to the topic. As per (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Scholarship), high-quality academic sources are essential, but older sources like K.S. Singh’s are still valid when used in conjunction with modern studies to provide a complete view of the topic.

    I also understand concerns related to (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons), particularly regarding the inclusion of living people's names in caste articles. If specific names are a violation of (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BLP_categories), I agree they should be removed. However, this does not justify removing the entire article or historical context that is verifiable and supported by well-established sources. The article provides valuable historical and sociological context that should not be discarded simply due to concerns over individual names.

    The sources I have used are critical to the article’s depth and accuracy. While there are concerns over the accessibility and page numbers of some sources, I am willing to work to improve verifiability, such as by adding missing page numbers or citing additional resources. According to (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources), I aim to improve the article's citation standards, but my main goal is to maintain the article’s historical integrity while complying with Misplaced Pages’s standards for verifiability, neutrality, and reliability.

    (https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ratnahastin) has raised concerns about the reliability and relevance of these sources, particularly due to their age. However, rather than removing content entirely, I propose that we retain these sources while improving the article’s clarity and citation standards. The article can be collaboratively improved to ensure it meets Misplaced Pages's guidelines while preserving the depth of the subject matter.

    Summary of dispute by Ratnahastin

    The OP does not really understand the purpose of WP:DR. The proper venue for this dispute was WP:RSN. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    I understand your concerns, but I’d appreciate if we could focus on constructive dialogue rather than dismissing my contributions as AI-generated or repetitive. I’ve put in considerable effort into researching and explaining my points here and on RSN, as you’ve acknowledged.
    While RSN focuses strictly on source reliability, this discussion at DRN is broader—it’s about how content sourced from historical documents can be meaningfully incorporated into the article without violating Misplaced Pages’s guidelines like WP:BLP or WP:GSCASTE.
    I’d also like to emphasize that I’m not against incorporating modern tertiary sources. In fact, I’ve already proposed balancing the article with both historical and modern perspectives to ensure neutrality and depth. I am also willing to address verifiability concerns by adding specific page numbers or additional citations.
    Accusing me of forum shopping is inaccurate—I brought the matter to RSN to address the reliability of specific sources, and to DRN to resolve content disputes that go beyond just reliability. These are distinct yet connected aspects of the same issue.
    I hope we can focus on resolving the content dispute collaboratively rather than resorting to unproductive allegations. I look forward to hearing constructive feedback from DRN volunteers or other editors like @Fylingfotberserk and @Ekdalian, whom you’ve pinged. Nlkyair012 05:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Kamaria Ahir discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    Thank you for your note. I acknowledge that source reliability is a critical aspect of this dispute, and as you mentioned, I have already brought up this matter on the Reliable Source Noticeboard (RSN) here to evaluate the specific sources in question.
    However, this dispute at DRN extends beyond just the reliability of sources. It involves a broader disagreement over how content from historical sources should be incorporated into the article while balancing compliance with Misplaced Pages's policies like WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:V.
    Here at DRN, I am seeking resolution on whether the historical context provided by these sources can be retained while ensuring the article aligns with community standards. This involves determining whether to refine, supplement, or restructure the article, rather than removing entire sections or sources outright.
    I appreciate your efforts and hope this clarifies why this discussion is taking place here in addition to RSN. If DRN volunteers feel this still doesn’t meet the scope of this forum, I’d appreciate guidance on next steps. Nlkyair012 05:21, 24 December 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.

    Old Government House, Parramatta

    – Discussion in progress. Filed by Itchycoocoo on 06:47, 24 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

    Is a dispute regarding using non-copyright material used within the article Old Government House, Parramatta that extends to >90% of material from another website.


    The User who posted much of this material contends that "The material is CC-BY licensed, as stated in the edit summary and correctly attributed, which is, and has always been, usable on Misplaced Pages, and was added as part of a massive project by a number of Australian editors to import quality CC-BY content from a number of heritage sources."


    I think that this material should be placed subject under WP:EL/ External Links, and follow the clearly defined rules of WP:COPYPASTE/ Copying text from other sources, WP:Plagiarism & WP:PARAPHRASE guidelines.


    Ignoring the numerous uncivil issues appearing on the Talkpage, the view is using material like this is legalistically quite correct regarding use of non-copyright material, but in my opinion, it exceed any 'fair use' of material in which it is almost completely paraphrased and could even be considered as plagiarism.

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

    Talk:Old Government House, Parramatta#This is a mess

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Could someone clarify and advise how and to what extent such external material can be used in Misplaced Pages pages?

    Knowing this would be able to improve the page and remove some of the text it doesn't seem relevant.

    Summary of dispute by The Drover's Wife

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

    Old Government House, Parramatta discussion

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

    Zeroth statement by moderator (Old Government House)

    I am ready to act as the moderator in this dispute. Firstly, I would like to ask the editors to read Misplaced Pages:DRN Rule B and state their acceptance of it. This ruleset allows back-and-forth discussion, however, I would like to remind you to stay civil. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article; we won't be discussing conduct issues.

    It is my understanding that The Drover's Wife wants the current state of the article to remain. Is this correct? I would like to ask Itchycoocoo what changes do you want exactly and why? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Zeroth statements by editors (Old Government House)

    Firstly, thank you for taking this issue up.

    I do accept Misplaced Pages DRN Rule B, and will avoid unnecessary interaction with the other editor.

    You state "It is my understanding that The Drover's Wife wants the current state of the article to remain." I don't think that is the case, and as others are pointed out, there are many irrelevant statements relating to the subject, which can be used elsewhere or in other pages.

    I will be very happy to do such culling.

    But the issue is about using non-copyright text 'free use' to such an extent that it is place there near its entirety. It appears that any material that is deemed free use without copyright under CC – BY licenses can be used within Misplaced Pages pages. This is acknowledged.

    However, elsewhere under paraphrase, copypaste, and plagiarism, it suggests that the amount of text using whole webpages should not extensively used by Misplaced Pages editors. e.g. According to WP:Copypaste "With the exceptions of short quotations from copyright text, and text copied from a free source without a copyright, text from other sources may not be copied into Misplaced Pages. Doing so is a copyright violation and constitutes plagiarism."

    I think the issue is a grey area. Using portions of an external webpage, whether a copyright or not, should be adopted sparingly and not cart blanch as example by this article.

    In my opinion, the entire adopt the text should be scrapped, and should be written by a Misplaced Pages editor, but still extracting some of the CC – BY material either in quotes, as suggested in Close paraphrasing "With the exceptions of short quotations from copyright text, and text copied from a free source without a copyright, text from other sources may not be copied into Misplaced Pages. Doing so is a copyright violation and constitutes plagiarism."

    Q: My question to resolve this dispute is how much of CC – BY license usage of another site can be used in a Misplaced Pages page? Is 100% acceptable, say 50%, 20%, or maybe just 5%?

    If it is 100% acceptable, then the pasting of all of this material is acceptable to Misplaced Pages standards. However, looking at the other Misplaced Pages policies, it seems to me that significant section taken from any website is needed, really should be placed in quotation marks, and used to support statements made in secondary sources written by Users.

    The alternative is to just place it as a simple external link, for readers who want to read the more extensive knowledge in more detail.

    Based on the discussion and debate, if I do do this, I fear that it will simply be reverted to the original text in the alternate website. I would also like to add some new information that is occurred in the last year or two, has there been significant developments in the building and its grounds. Using the non-copyright source means it will have to be modified fairly severely and still read as if it were encyclopaedic.

    Perhaps the other editor in this dispute may have some useful suggestions on improving this article with these thoughts in mind. They are clearly an experienced editor, so any ideas would be welcome.

    Thanks. Itchycoocoo (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Categories: