Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Summary of dispute by Wearealexandra

The inclusion of this unverified statistic in the lede of the article is irrelevant and should be removed, and I would not be opposed to the removal of discussion of the sexual content of the character from the article as a whole. This is not an attempt by me to engage in general censorship over an uncomfortable topic, I do think that there is a place for this when discussing video game characters (Gardevior and Tifa Lockheart are great examples, as there has been significant erotic discussion around the characters since their inception), however I don't believe that Purah is a character this applies to.

Additionally, I feel some further context is necessary, and I genuinely hope that bringing it up doesn't inherently veer into WP:PA. I believe that KungFuMan feels he owns this article, breaking WP:OWN. Edits to that section of the page are reverted often within minutes, and one time reverting large amounts of fairly reasonable copyediting under the accusation of users attempting to "steadily gut the article". When attempting to defend the inclusion of this section, he will often cite pages like Gardevior and Widowmaker (Overwatch), pages that he is a significant contributor on, and could often be called the lead contributor. He was the first person to add a mention of pornography to the lede of the Widowmaker page, and the mention of pornography in the Gardevior lede was first added by Cukie Gherkin, who KungFuMan cites on his talk page is a major contributor to this article. Just because you did it elsewhere and it may be relevant elsewhere does not mean it needs to be done here.

I firmly believe that someone outside of the very insular video game Wikipedia community needs to step in. While KungFuMan and his friends may rightfully say WP:NOTCENSORED, I would like to say WP:NOTFREESPEECH.

Summary of dispute by Captain_Galaxy

I was only really involved because I happened to be alerted about the discussion on the VGC task force and thought I should provide some summary and context to the dispute. I expressed that I would rather not be involved as I typically don't like disputes (nor do I really want to be involved in this either but I was summoned here so I didn't feel like I had much of a choice), but seeing as it was a lengthy discussion I felt it was worth providing assistance. Additionally, I believe that some of the other editors involved in the same discussion from July 2025, as this was a discussion that was already roughly cleared up back then before being revived again this week.

As for the article itself, it uses multiple reliable secondary sources to cover the topics that it covers and was even reviewed for GA by an established editor without issue. For some reason, these points were mischaracterised as violating WP:TRIVIA, even though as was pointed out to them, they do not as it is discussing commentary of the subject matter with people beyond its initial source material. When I brought this up to the dispute nominator, they again discredited these sources for including social media posts in it when what was being cited was both the editor's opinion and fandom reaction as well as basic statements of fact, which again aren't trivia, as was pointed out in the discussion. As for the alleged unfounded information, the VG247 article in question seems to indicate that it is the editor herself who is verifying the information, which would be fine as the outlet is deemed reliable. However, should that not suffice, I have also found an article from Mashable (who we have used for articles before without issue) that identifies that does link to a primary source. The stat is an identifiable part of the reception and would be worthy to put in the lede.

As for KFM's involvement, the reason why he is so quick to act on the article is because, like with most of the articles editors create, the article is on his watch page and therefore can see when the page gets updated. I am not even sure why this is even really a point, what rule or policy is KFM violating by mentioning this information, as editors in the discussion including myself agree it is allowed to be there and goes beyond trivia. The reason why he even brought up the other articles, in addition to the fact that they relate to the subject, is that most of them have been reviewed and deemed to be of good quality. This is the same discussion that occurred on the AC character list talk page for Ankha which had the same result where editors agree similar content could stay is it was covered, where it only met pushback because some deemed it uncomfortable or irrelevant despite it not being based on any editorial consensus or merit, nor does it violate WP:NOTFREESPEECH. CaptainGalaxy 20:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kung_Fu_Man

I will point out that I have actively suggested that the discussion be taken to WT:VG, but it was ignored. Instead, while the sources are covered by reliable, third party publications discussing the subject such as VG247, GamesRadar+, and Polygon among others, the editor in question has attempted now to claim that it's citing "twitter and tiktok responses", while the body of work itself discusses the individual journalist's reactions. Additionally, this is an continuation of a previous attempt at this editor arguing for its removal, in which other editors not tagged into this dispute resolution also weighed in. This sort of information has been cited without issue in other articles, for example Widowmaker (Overwatch), D.Va or Gardevoir, where a fandom's reaction to a character has been a significant part of how they are received. Despite this being pointed out, the editor waged personal attacks on Talk:Purah.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Purah discussion

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Purah)

I am ready to act as the moderator if the editors want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A, which is the set of rules that will apply to discussion. Please remember to assume good faith. The other editors are also trying to improve the encyclopedia. Be civil and concise. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. In moderated discussion, the moderator asks the questions and the editors reply to the moderator, and to the community. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and do not reply to each other.

I will start by asking the usual starting question. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I will ask each editor exactly what each of them wants to change in the article that another editor disagrees with, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I would like to excise "Purah was often sexualized by the latter, with searches on PornHub for content related to the character seeing a large uptick after the game's release." from the opening of the article. While the statistic may be true, I don't think it adds anything of value to the article; to me, "people looked up more pornography of this character when she had an adult version" tells me something that I can already safely assume based on "the vast majority of people are not attracted to children".

I would also like to excise and/or seriously modify the first two paragraphs of 'Critical reception', because I have a few problems with it.

One is that I think the sourcing is on shaky ground. While I'm aware that the sources given fall under WikiProject Video Games' reliable sources, I feel the requirements for 'this is significant fan reception' should be higher than simply reporting on whether or not something happened. These four articles are currently based on "two TikToks, five tweets, and statistics that aren't cited in the article being used as a citation", and I'd dispute that most of the articles' original sources aren't explicitly playing up her sexuality.

Two is that I think it's getting undue weight; it's the first thing that's talked about in the critical reception of a character who existed prior to this adult form, and it's taking up half the section for this character.

I think you can cut the reception about her down to about a paragraph and spend less time talking about fans' sexual attraction to her, and just discuss the general positive reaction to her adult form, and not lose anything important from the article.

Do I need to provide any other specific information or clarify anything? Splitpunched (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe I've put this in the wrong place; my apologies. Splitpunched (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It sounds to me that the solution would be to make it clearer that Purah was a significant portion of the rise in searches relating to Zelda discussed later in the article Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Purah)

I feel there's nothing that needs to be changed, because what's being asked is the removal of a key point and one of the WP:THREE pillars holding up the article: that an already-established character saw a massive, measurable reaction to her appearance in Tears of the Kingdom that helped encourage discussion around her. Fan response is a valid thing to mention in wikipedia articles as long as there is WP:SIGCOV in secondary reliable sources, and the fact it's PornHub providing an exact metric to help measure that is no different than say Google, as it helps give the reader a sense of scale of just how much interest increased in regards to that particular aspect.

I do feel there's a bit of a disconnect with the newer editors who find that sort of subject matter a weird angle on wikipedia, but a character's sex appeal, fan reaction and analysis of such are valid to cite (see: Bayonetta, Lara Croft). Overwatch and pornography and Pokémon and pornography both cite multiple reliable sources in this context, meanwhile Rolling Stone recently published an article by Alyssa Mercante analyzing how the characters of Marvel Rivals were handled in the context of such media.. There is argument for consensus on the validity of this reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I concur with Kung Fu Man with his proposal in keeping the article as is, as I believe it would be wrong to simply cherry pick details of the fan response out of the commentary. The sources uses posts from social media as an example of the wider fan demand, not just specifically those individual posts; the sources do not indicate undue weight (not to mention as KFM mentioned in his original summary that the sources are also focused on the author's comments as well). That being said, I would advocate for the addition of another source that pertains to this discussion: the Mashable source I mentioned in my summary to at least appease the opposition's request in having a source that directly connects to the original statistics, even though what is originally there is fine to use.

As mentioned in KFM's zeroth statement, this sort of commentary has been standard both before and after this article's creation nor does it go against any rules or guidelines that the wikiproject or the wider site as a whole follows. What the opposition seems to be indirectly citing here is WP:ROUTINE, which realistically wouldn't apply as most characters don't receive this type of coverage. CaptainGalaxy 17:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for moderating! My request is the same as Splitpunched, excise the PornHub sentence from the lede, and cut down the discussion of sexualization of the character in the reception section. Even if the sources can be considered credible, others have not provided explanation of why it is important to include it. It's undue weight for a character that is not known for being a sex icon. Wearealexandra (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (Purah)

It appears that two editors want to remove the sentence Purah was often sexualized by the latter, with searches on PornHub for content related to the character seeing a large uptick after the game's release., and two editors want to keep it. Is that correct? If so, I think that a Request for Comments is in order, but I would like to see if we can avoid an RFC, because it takes a month and consumes volunteer time. I am asking each editor to provide a one-paragraph statement (meaning a paragraph that will fit on the small screen of a mobile device) supporting their position.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Purah)

The problem goes a bit beyond that Robert, the newer editors appear to want to downplay and/or remove the mention of how she was received in that regard despite the sources in the reception section, arguing that it's WP:ROUTINE coverage (which it most certainly is not, most characters don't get this sort of coverage) or that its unnecessary as the character is not a "sex symbol" (which has never been a requirement for mentioning this). While I could concede altering the lead, there is at least some discussion as to why the character is appealing, how fans expressed that, and a measurable metric (two sources VG247 and Mashable citing Pornhub searches). Why would the lead not mention that, when Google searches would be fair game to mention if discussed in the same capacity?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Other characters 'have not received this coverage' because we're talking about a character from a major video game franchise who was previously depicted as an adult in a small child's body, and is now depicted as an adult in an adult's body. That's a fairly niche situation! Ultimately, the PornHub statistics say "people are more sexually attracted to someone depicted as an adult rather than a child"; for the vast majority of people's pornographic/sexual preferences, this is a different character who happens to have the same name, and phrasing it as "there was a large uptick" buries the lede that (almost) nobody was looking her up before because she was in the form of a small child. Splitpunched (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Since my statements are being offhandedly addressed in this same discussion (which I'm certain aren't supposed to be?), I will add that we are trying to avoid WP:OR, and to assume any additional information on the data provided other than what was stated (VG247: the numbers were unsettlingly high and that she was the most popular character from the game) would be just that. There's no indication it had anything to do with her "not being a child" or discussion therein. In fact two sources that do discuss the attraction (, ) attribute it more to a "domme" fetish, a la Lady Dimitrescu.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The opposition wishes to subtract paragraphs from the reception and lede of the article despite neither violating any rules or guidelines on Wikipedia. The latter is doing its job in referencing the article body while the former is adequate SIGCOV. The statements are supported by multiple reliable sources that supply more than routine coverage as the commentary is neither planned, announcement regarding the subject nor run-of-the-mill as characters don't typically get this amount of coverage. The statistic is mentioned by two reliable sources so I fail to see how should not included under UNDUE. I question why the opposition is using the child design as justification as the article never links that design to the fan reception, just that critics believed the adult design was an improvement over it. It would be Original Research to suggest or assume they are connected. Overall, an RFC is not necessary based on this rationale as well as KFM's. CaptainGalaxy 16:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Second statement by possible moderator (Purah)

It appears that there is still a 2-against-2 split over whether to remove the sentence in question. I will construct a draft RFC for review, before it will be activated and launched. Does anyone have any other suggestions for how to resolve this dispute other than an RFC?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Purah)

I really don't think a RfC is needed. The argument against is based on original research not stated by the sources, or even supported by fact: she was already shown as an adult in Hyrule Warriors prior to her most discussed appearance, something also established by the sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe this is resolvable in any way other than a RFC; the arguments that have been made in defense of it have only made me believe even more that the article is better off without it. Splitpunched (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Purah)

I don't understand the response of Kung Fu Man, who says that an RFC is not necessary. I understand that they want to leave the questioned sentence in. How do they propose to resolve the content dispute other than by an RFC? Perhaps they mean that the editors who want to remove it are simply wrong. Who do they think should decide who is right and who is wrong? Will they please explain whether there is a dispute resolution process that can be used instead of an RFC?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Purah)

I think honestly this should have been brought up at WT:VG first, before even proceeding here. They've stated outright at the beginning that they want an opinion from outside the VG space (which is unusual) and excluded other editors that were involved in the discussion such as Cukie Gherkin and TheTechnician27, who refuted the very claims he's making here which I feel is significant given I'm being accused of WP:OWN. I will be frank too, as much as I would like to assume he is doing this in good faith, he has taken to his social media during this process on [redacted] to frame this as "editors being weird about female fictional characters"[redacted], while also repeatedly firing off personal attacks both me and Captain Galaxy on a public platform.[redacted doxing]. This is not the behavior of someone that wants a resolution. The only reason I haven't mentioned this sooner is I'm not sure how to proceed in a situation like this.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Purah)

I was about to fail this dispute, but that would leave the filing editor without a dispute resolution mechanism when the filing editor was not the editor who disregarded the instructions. I didn't explicitly tell the participants not to edit the article, but I did tell them to follow DRN Rule A, which, like most DRN rules, says not to edit the article. I shouldn't have to spell out all of the provisions of the rules when I have told the editors to read the rules. The ability and willingness to read English is a requirement for editing the English Wikipedia.

Two editors wanted to remove a sentence about the sexualization of the character, while two editors wanted to retain the sentence. I concluded that an RFC was necessary to decide whether to retain or remove the sentence. User:Kung Fu Man said that an RFC was not needed. I asked them why not, and their answer was not useful, but questioned the good faith of the other editors, and said that there should have been discussion at WikiProject Video Games. Discussion at a WikiProject is often useful, but it was not clear whether they wanted to withdraw from moderated discussion. Since the editors who wanted to remove the sentence had requested an RFC, I started to compose the draft RFC, but found that the article had been edited and the wording of the sentence in question had been changed. I can't prepare an RFC when the article is being edited, and in particular not when the sentence in question is being edited.

I see a few ways to go forward:

• 1. The editors can again agree voluntarily that they will leave the article alone in its current state. We will not argue over what is the "right version" or "wrong version", but can resume moderated discussion, which will result in an RFC.
• 2. User:Kung Fu Man can withdraw from this DRN, because participation in DRN is voluntary. The discussion by the other editors will continue here. Since the article may be in flux due to being edited by an editor who has withdrawn from DRN, I will have to prepare a more expansive RFC.
• 3. An editor can make a request at Requests for Page Protection that the article be fully protected for about a week, and discussion here will result in an RFC.
• 4. An editor can make a report at WP:ANI against another editor, preferably after reading the boomerang essay. I will close this DRN as failed. WP:ANI may say that there is a content dispute and to restart DRN, or survivors can discuss at the article talk page, or survivors can restart DRN. I would like to avoid this option.
• 5. The filing editor can withdraw from this DRN, which is voluntary, in order to discuss at WikiProject Video Games rather than here. If the filing editor withdraws, I will close this case so that discussion can continue at the Video Games project. I don't recommend this option, because the discussion at the Video Games project may be lengthy and inconclusive, but I am listing it for completeness.

Which option shall we follow?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Purah)

I wish to withdraw. I gave a very useful answer with my reasons why I don't feel this was in good faith on the other editor's part, and I feel that's very important when trying to litigate articles and other editors. I feel too the way this is being argued here would impact more than just Purah as an article, and why it's important to have a broader discussion at WT:VG if Split chooses to pursue it over a localized RfC. I will emphasize that I have been nothing but respectful, and been on the side willing to make concessions to the article's lead to try and find a middle ground, especially after talking with SnowFire for his advice as a neutral but established party. I apologize if this has been a waste of your time, Robert.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to help volunteer for this discussion, Robert. Upon reading the latest comments made here starting at the "Third statements" in regards to the DRN and thinking it over for the day, I too would like to withdraw with the discussion. As I stated in my initial summary, I didn't want to get involved with any of the arguments and chose to just summarise on the article's talk page the viewpoints and guidelines the WikiProject and the Character Task Force followed in order to justify why the article currently is the way it is. I only stayed involved because I was notified and felt obligated to participate. However, after finding out about the personal comments made by the filing editor about me and another editor involved in this, I no longer wish to engage with them. I feel that a line has been crossed by the filing editor which went beyond just helping to edit an article. Additionally, I have also noticed that the other editor of the opposition of this dispute has not engaged in this discussion in just over 72 hours, meaning it has just been the filing editor that has been the main driver for this dispute since the start of the "First statements by editors". I formally withdraw from this discussion as my goal remains to help build this encyclopaedia. CaptainGalaxy 19:10, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

As both of the editors holding the opposing view have backed out, it's clear that a DRN is not going to resolve the issue. I believe that I would like to move forward with a RFC, if that's still an option. Further discussion between the remaining editors seems moot at this point. Splitpunched (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

My apologies for going quiet, I was away on business and unable to log in on my phone. Since KFM and Captain Galaxy have withdrawn, DRN doesn't seem applicable anymore, and KFM has changed the questionable sentence in the lede while doing a large amount of general changing to the article. I believe that an RFC would still be valuable for the actual content of the article. I still do not see the value in this PornHub statistic in relation to the character and would like folks outside of WT:VG to weigh in, and will take whatever consensus arises there. I appreciate your moderating in this case, Robert, especially in the face of non-cooperation and WP:DOXXING. Wearealexandra (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Purah)

The two editors who wished to keep the part about the sexualization of the character have withdrawn from the DRN. So this is not a regular DRN because we are not trying to resolve the dispute by discussion. However, since the remaining editors have said that they are interested in an RFC, I will keep this case open for visibility and so that it will be archived as a DRN case. I am now asking the remaining editors what they want to change in the article so that we can decide what the RFC should say. Do the remaining editors want the RFC to ask whether to remove any statement about sexualization of the character from the lede paragraph? Is there anything else that the remaining editors want to change in the article?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Purah)

My issue is that I don't have a very specific, solid "this is exactly what I think should be done"; I think it's good that the Pornhub statistic was moved to the "critical reception" section, but I don't believe it provides anything of value to the article.

I still think the article is problematic because I feel like it's placing an undue amount of weight on the response to her sexuality/physical attractiveness. I don't believe that a lot of the articles are doing much in the way of independent research; they're basically just collecting some social media posts and going 'I agree'. All of them are from immediately after release; most of the examples given before are from characters who have been sex symbols for a long while at this point, so I'd think this is WP:RECENT at work as well.

I don't have an exact answer for how much it needs to be cut down; I'm open to the idea that some of it is necessary, but I think it needs to be cut down fairly significantly. I hope that's specific enough of an answer; if you _need_ me to come up with "this is what I would do with it if it were solely up to me", I can attempt to do that. Splitpunched (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I feel like the existence of the Pornhub statistic as a point of evidence contradicts the notion that there's no independent research - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with SplitPunched in that the discussion of her physical attractiveness should be cut down in some way. Wearealexandra (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Purah)

Two editors want to change the wording of the article to reduce the discussion of Purah's physical appearance or attractiveness, but do not have any specific suggestions. In that case, I will advise them to discuss on the article talk page, and will close this case. If they then have a specific change in wording in mind, they may open a new case here, as a request for assistance in formulating the RFC. In that case, I am willing to provide that assistance even if the other editors decline to take part in the case.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Having not dealt with an RFC before, I was unaware that you were requesting that I come up with a specific change.

I can certainly come up with a specific 'this is what I think it should look like' if that's what the ask is.

What would the process look like in that case? Would you still be requesting a new DRN? Splitpunched (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Purah)

Seventh statement by moderator (Purah)

Okay. We can continue this DRN to allow Splitpunched to propose the wording for the RFC. The RFC will give the community a choice between two versions of the wording of the sentence in question. Sometimes there are RFCs that ask an open-ended question, but they are likely to result in an open-ended conclusion, such as that the wording should be changed, so that the dispute continues as to how to change the article. So we will compose an RFC that offers a specific alternate wording. Yes, we need a specific 'this is what I think it should look like'. Splitpunched asks: What would the process look like in that case? Would you still be requesting a new DRN?. State how you want the article to read, and I will compose and launch the RFC to ask the community whether to make that change. That will not involve a new DRN, but will be the conclusion of this DRN.

I will ask my usual question. What do you want to change in the article that other editors do not want to change, or what do you want to leave alone that other editors want to change?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (Purah)

Summary of dispute by Shoshin000

Come on people, this is a non-issue. In all other ex-USSR infoboxes (e.g. Sergey Bubka, Anna Kournikova, Emomali Rahmon etc.) the SSR in question is mentioned with a Wikilink. Why should it be different here?

Ragebait: Is it because, like with Baltics, some people are embarrassed that Ukraine was a part of the USSR? --Shoshin000 (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's totally cherrypicking. Plus, MOS:VAR states, "Edit warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is disruptive and is never acceptable." Thedarkknightli (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Absolutiva

Summary of dispute by Kelob2678

I agree with the summary provided by Thedarkknightli. My position is that the above-mentioned RfC was about the Baltic states and is not applicable to this discussion. The infobox format should follow the specification for the birth_place parameter in {{infobox person}}, which is Place of birth: city, administrative region, country. The Ukrainian SSR shouldn't be linked because it is more famous than the Baltic SSRs and doesn't have a complicated legal history such as State continuity of the Baltic states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelob2678 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Volodymyr Zelenskyy discussion

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Zelenskyy)

I am ready to act as the moderator if the editors want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D, the statement that Eastern Europe is a contentious topic, and the statement that biographies of living persons are a contentious topic.

Is this a question about how to display Zelenskyy's place of birth in the infobox? I am willing to provide a fifth opinion, but only if the editors agree that it will be a binding fifth opinion. (If I provide a fifth opinion, and other editors disagree, I will have become non-neutral, and will no longer be available for moderated discussion.)

Are there any other content issues or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Is this a question about how to display Zelenskyy's place of birth in the infobox? Yes.

Are there any other content issues or questions? No other content issues or questions for now.

Thanks, Thedarkknightli (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Zelenskyy)

First statement by possible moderator (Zelenskyy)

I can see that one of the issues is whether to link Ukrainian SSR or to leave it as unlinked text. Are there any other issues? It appears that the editor who wants to link it has not edited since this case was filed, so that there is, for the time being, a local consensus not to link Ukrainian SSR. Is that correct?

Are there any other content issues or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement 1.1 by possible moderator (Zelesnkyy)

There is a dispute at WP:ANI between two of the editors in this dispute. The dispute at WP:ANI does not appear to be directly related to this dispute, but I am placing this dispute on hold until the dispute at WP:ANI is resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Zelenskyy)

Second statement by possible moderator (Zelenskyy)

The WP:ANI case was archived without action.

I can see that one of the issues is whether to link Ukrainian SSR or to leave it as unlinked text. Are there any other issues? It appears that the editor who wants to link it has not edited since this case was filed, so that there is, for the time being, a local consensus not to link Ukrainian SSR. Is that correct?

Are there any other content issues or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Is that correct? Yes.

Are there any other content issues or questions? No.

Thanks, Thedarkknightli (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Zelenskyy)

Summary of dispute by MFTP Dan

• Sorry for the delay in my response. It's been a bit busy this weekend. I was the one to start a discussion in the first place. I believe that the timeline of Evanescence not only deviates from the generally-accepted protocol of timelines for musical groups, but also now presents in a way that's confusing to read. It was changed, without discussion, in December 2022 to a graph which follows strictly a descending order of time, without being grouped by instrument, while the majority of Wikipedia uses the contrary. Lapadite fiercely defends this configuration, and I think (?) I have it right: they claim this is "neutral", and the majority approach is both arbitrary and does not align with our rules on the order of how the members are listed outside the timeline. I simply do not believe making the timeline this way is in the project's best interest. This is ineffective, as it lacks enough structure to be useful. Readers of band articles want to see how an instrument role's members have changed over time, not simply a descending group of multicolored lines. I offered to compromise on changing the band member list practice to align with the greater timeline usage, but this was rejected. mftp dan ^oops 13:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Lapadite

Widgetkid has repeatedly mischaracterized this, now here and previously on the Evanescence talk page in order to devalue my policy-based arguments. First, this matter stems from (the typical scenario on WP of) someone seeing a band article with a timeline image that's arbitrarily grouped by instrument colors, and copying that style onto other articles assuming that that is a correct, official standard. Consequently, a number of band articles become populated with the same timeline image style and it's then assumed that WP:OTHERCONTENT rules and all band articles must invariably follow this "preference" of a timeline image using a random grouping of members by instruments, despite there being no guideline about this or community consensus. Several years prior (circa 2022), MFTP Dan (formerly DannyMusicEditor) and I had discussed and disagreed on this; no further discussion was had or a community consensus.

My position is simple, based on neutrality and taking subjectivity/bias out of it. A timeline is by definition a chronological order of events. Band members sections list members in chronological order (the order in which they joined a band). A supplementary image of the members list should reflect the same chronological order that members are listed in. Re-imagining a timeline image to group members by the colored instruments/roles makes it an arbitrary, subjective, non-neutral selection, instead of the image being what it's meant to be: a supplementary visual timeline of the members list, which is neutral, objective, as well as useful for readers; a chronologically-presented timeline image allows readers to see at a glance three things: the order in which each member joined (which readers instinctively expect to see when looking at a timeline), for how long each member played in a band (which also shows if a band's recent members or older members have lasted longer in the band), and what instrument(s) they used during their time in the band. Chronological order of members is inherently neutral and objective, not subject to interpretation or editor bias, and easy to digest and useful for readers. Per policy, WP content should be presented in a neutral way, which includes the structure of content. And, per policy, in the absence of a guideline community consensus should determine how to go about it. During the discussion on the Evanescence talk page, I recommended seeking a community consensus (such as an RfC) per policy, which Widgetkid repeatedly ignored (as well as implied WP's policies and guidelines don't arbitrate) and reverted the article again despite no change in the discussion.

The chronology of this matter:

• On Feb 16 2026, the user MPAOF (an account created on Feb 1) changed the timeline image to instrument groups. Tobi999tomas reverted it back to chronological order. MFTP Dan reverted Tobi999tomas. I reverted MFTP Dan, restoring the chronological order the article's had for several years. Over the next several days, MFTP Dan reverted again, and I reverted explaining again in the edit summaries.
• On March 3 2026, MFTP Dan posted on my talk page about this. We went back and forth there, and on March 16 and March 18 he posted on the BLP and Wikiproject Musicians talk pages asking for agreement, which didn't receive a response. Widgetkid copied the discussion MFTP Dan and I had on my talk page to the Evanescence talk page, where the discussion continued. Lapadite (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Evanescence discussion

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages, which is required for all noticeboard filings. A statement on the article talk page is not sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that, @Robert McClenon. I have added those notifications. WidgetKid ^Converse 22:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Evanescence)

I am ready to act as the moderator if the parties want moderated discussion. Two editors have made statements, but, if I am reading the statements and the history correctly, the two editors who have made statements agree with each other, and the other editor, who disagrees, has not made a statement. We will proceed with discussion, and if one editor does not participate, I will give instructions as to how to continue to proceed. Please read DRN Rule A, which is the ruleset that will be in effect for discussion.

I usually start by asking the editors what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. I see that there is a dispute over the order of the musicians in the timeline. Are there any other parts of the article that are in dispute? I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. I am aware that I am probably asking the editors to restate what they have already stated.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I will admit that Lapadite and I frequently have very different - polar, often - opinions on editing Evanescence, but this is the first time I've had to use this part of Wikipedia. Usually we are able to talk out issues, not this time. Consequently I apologize if I'm supposed to put this statement somewhere else; feel free to move where it belongs if that's the case. To answer your question, technically, yes there is one dispute active that is indirectly tied to the band - an ongoing AfD for a band member - but that shouldn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand. In other words, I think I understand and I'm ready to proceed. mftp dan ^oops 13:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, you weren't made aware in the comment above mine but I responded before you opened this section. My response above is a detailed summary of my position and correcting the misrepresentations given. I'm posting here to let you know I won't be participating further as I've clearly laid out my policy-based arguments multiple times between the band talk page and here. It is my view that this third opinion process is unnecessary as it can't resolve this because it can't create a community consensus, which is what is needed via WP:RfC; I recommended seeking a community consensus several times but the involved editors ignored it. A community consensus is needed because there is no guideline for this and it involves many band articles, given that those who prefer a subjective instrument grouping over of a neutral chronological order for a timeline suggest that all articles should use the same timeline image style and don't accept articles using different image formats based on what's best for each article. Lapadite (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

No questions yet. Rule A looks pretty straighforward. Thanks for taking this on. WidgetKid ^Converse 06:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Evanescence)

First statement by possible moderator (Evanescence)

I will remind the editors that we should comment on content, not contributors, and that Assume Good Faith is a basic guideline. Lapadite has stated their position, and has requested an RFC on how to organize the timeline. Making that request now is more useful than discussing at length and concluding that an RFC is needed. So I will prepare an RFC with the assistance of the parties. I am asking each editor to prepare a timeline in a sandbox, so that I can put the two timelines into the RFC for comparison. That is the next step.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I would not mind RFC if that is the preferred avenue of resolution. Coming here was a new idea. I'll work on a timeline proposal, I guess is the word we want. No further questions at this time. mftp dan ^oops 12:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't organized an RFC before, so not super familiar, but sounds like a good approach. What happens if there is no community consensus? This has been an issue in prior project conversations. WidgetKid ^Converse 21:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Evanescence)

Here is my proposed version of the timeline, which follows the pattern of other rock band articles. WidgetKid ^Converse 21:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Graywalls

A request made on behalf of the hospital asked to include commentary about religiously accommodating dietary options, but it only cites the hospitals own page. I'm not asserting that primary source can not be used, but WP:SPS applies that if it's worthy if inclusion, it would be covered by other sources. I find it to be a tangential trivia and feel it isn't due for inclusion per WP:NOTEVERYTHING although Julian in LA believes it merits inclusion. No 3PO or RFC or other efforts have been made to try to get consensus on contents dispute before they immediately went to DRN. Graywalls (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Danilo_Two

To clarify: As part of an edit request, I asked editors to consider including information about how Cedars-Sinai Medical Center retained its Jewish identity following a merger, sourced to a Jewish Journal article and the Cedars-Sinai's website. Other information was added to the proposal following discussion on the article Talk page. I'll defer to editing community regarding the appropriateness of that content. Danilo Two (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center discussion

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Sinai Hospital)

I am not yet ready to act as the moderator in this discussion, because one editor has not made a statement (and has not edited since they were notified of this filing). However, I will make a few comments. I will also ask the editors to read DRN Rule A, and will note that it says not to edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. I haven't started moderated discussion, but stopping edit-warring is a good idea.

Graywalls writes: No 3PO or RFC or other efforts have been made to try to get consensus on contents dispute before they immediately went to DRN. That was correct. Third Opinion is not applicable because there are three editors. Discussion should take place before an RFC. An RFC should be the last step in content dispute resolution, and may be preceded by DRN. DRN is often followed by an RFC; the opposite should not be done.

The comment was made: There is an assertion that a disinterested editor may not make a change based only on a request from a COI editor. That is incorrect. A disinterested editor may make a change based on an edit request. That is how changes that are initiated by COI editors should be made.

The comment was made: There is an assertion that self-published sources may not be cited, except under conditions that I don't understand. That is correct. I will try to explain those conditions if that is important in the scope of further discussion. In the meantime, if you don't understand those conditions, don't cite the self-published source.

When we start moderated discussion, I will ask each editor what changes they want to make to the article, or what changes another editor wants to make that they do not want made. Be ready for that question. I am not asking it yet.

Are there any other questions before we start moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth questions by editors (Sinai Hospital)

First statement by volunteer (Sinai Hospital)

Will each editor please state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave unchanged in the article that another editor wants to change?

Are there any other questions before we start moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm posting this in the wrong place. The current live article contains information that meets the spirit of my initial request, which was to include a brief mention of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center retaining its Jewish identity following the merger, citing one secondary source and one primary source. I have nothing else to request regarding this issue at this time. Thank you. Danilo Two (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

First questions by editors (Sinai Hospital)

A section on religious accommodations was deleted and should be restored. An article about a Jewish hospital should explain what it is. People going there as an employee or as a patient should know what to expect. Non-Jews should understand that this is a hospital, not a synagogue, and all religions are welcomed and accomodated. Of the two sources, one is independent and the other is institutional. This is appropriate for info that can be found only in a self-published source. The same is true for earnings and headcount of a business. The article as a whole has numerous independent sources.

I moved this to the top as part of a rewrite of the "Merger" section. The hospital's identity didn't change in the merger.

This issue has been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Can an article be based chiefly on self-sourced material? but the discussion was sidetracked onto Notability issues, which are not present here. Julian in LA (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Sinai Hospital)

The filing editor has been blocked indefinitely. Do the two remaining editors think that moderated discussion is necessary, or are the two remaining editors ready to close this case with the conclusion that any remaining disagreement can be dealt with by normal discussion on the article talk page?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Close. Nothing from me. Danilo Two (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Second questions by editors (Sinai Hospital)

Summary of dispute by Jackhanma69

The core issue is due weight (WP:UNDUE), not whether the material can be included at all.The primary consensus, based on Ibn Khallikān and reinforced by modern scholarship, is that the Ayyubids were of Kurdish tribal origin (Rawâdiyya branch of the Hadhbâniyya from Dvin). This should remain the main statement in the Origins section.Boris James (2006, p. 48) explicitly states that the Rawâdiyya were Hadhbâni Kurds who took the name of their masters because they served them:“des Kurdes hadhbâniyya qui prirent le nom de leurs maîtres : Rawâdiyya” This is name adoption through service, not blood descent. The opposing editor has repeatedly ignored this key sentence while quoting other parts of the page.Minorsky’s 1953 hypothesis is highly tentative (“perhaps”, “tempting to think”, “somehow connected”) and has not become mainstream. Encyclopaedia Iranica presents it as speculation. Giving it significant space in the Origins section would violate due weight by elevating a 70-year-old minority view.

Ayyubid dynasty discussion

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Ayyubid dynasty)

I am ready to conduct moderated discussion if the editors want moderated discussion. I am not sure that I am the right person to deal with this dispute, because one of the editors has requested someone with experience in the topic area. I will try to find a WikiProject where there can be discussion. In the meantime, please read DRN Rule A, which is the ruleset that we will follow until I find another leader or moderator. I will ask each editor to state, concisely, what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Identifying what the content dispute is will be useful either if I conduct moderated discussion, or if we find an editor with more experience.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Ayyubid dynasty)

I would like the Origins section to include the following material, drawn from Encyclopaedia Iranica, with appropriate attribution:

1. First, that some Ayyubid rulers sponsored genealogies claiming noble Arab descent; Iranica explicitly describes these as politically motivated fabrications. This is historical fact about the dynasty's own self-presentation and has not been disputed on policy grounds by the opposing editor.
2. Second, the historical background of the Rawwādid/Rawādīya group, which Iranica describes as originally of Arab descent and subsequently Kurdicized, as documented context for Ayyubid origins.
3. Third, Minorsky's hypothesis, included by R.S. Humphreys in Iranica's Ayyubids entry, that the Rawādīya Kurds may descend from this Kurdicized Arab lineage, clearly attributed and framed as speculative.

The Kurdish identity of the Ayyubids is not in dispute and would remain the primary statement in the section. All proposed additions would be clearly attributed and secondary. The proposed wording was outlined in the RFC filed on 4 April 2026. Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The Kurdish tribal origin of the Ayyubids (Rawâdiyya branch of the Hadhbâniyya from Dvin) is the clear primary consensus based on Ibn Khallikan and modern scholarship. This should be the main statement in the Origins section. Minorsky’s hypothesis is highly tentative and outdated. The Arab genealogies are explicitly described by Encyclopaedia Iranica as politically motivated fabrications. Giving them prominent space in the Origins section would violate WP:UNDUE by elevating speculative or fictional claims over the established historical origin. Jackhanma69 (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2026 (UTC)