This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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, mediation, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Button rediriger.png to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

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.

The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, whose role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. The coordinator also collects monthly metrics for the noticeboard.

The current coordinator is Iazyges.

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.
  • 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.
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 this page to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:
  • 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 Wikipedia, 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) and the bot will archive it soon after.

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.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Talk:Mujaddid#Mirza Ghulam_Ahmad Needs Attention Pepperbeast (t) 12 days, 16 hours Xavexgoem (t) 1 days, 8 hours Xavexgoem (t) 1 days, 8 hours
User talk:LordOfPens In Progress Lethargilistic (t) 6 days, 21 hours Robert McClenon (t) 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 23 hours
European Graduate School In Progress Serenest (t) 5 days, 15 hours None n/a Steven Crossin (t) 5 days, 13 hours
Talk:BTS (band) Closed (t) 2 days, 20 hours TransporterMan (t) 1 days, 1 hours TransporterMan (t) 1 days, 1 hours
The Students%27_Union_at_UWE New PompeyTheGreat (t) 9 minutes None n/a PompeyTheGreat (t) 9 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 DRN clerk bot (talk) at 20:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Mujaddid#Mirza Ghulam_Ahmad

Pictogram voting wait red.png – Needs attention.
Filed by Pepperbeast on 03:51, 3 November 2018 (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

Batreeq has inserted commentary as a footnote to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pointing out that many Muslims don't consider Ahmadiyya to be "real" Muslims. This doesn't reflect a neutral point of view, at least, not in an article that isn't actually about Ahmadiyya as such and singles out one branch of Islam for criticism.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried discussing the issue, and I tried initiating a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, but didn't generate any real interest.

How do you think we can help?

Not sure.

Summary of dispute by Batreeq

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

I have added a well-sourced footnote note explaining the status of the controversial sect; the majority of Muslims regard the sect he founded as un-Islamic/out of the fold of Islam as the sourced footnote states. Pepperbeast disagrees with this addition, though I have explained why it should remain on the two linked pages under the "Location of dispute" subheading above. Thank you, – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 00:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Mujaddid#Mirza Ghulam_Ahmad discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor of the filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Ooh, sorry... I failed to spot the template and wasn't sure if I needed to notify. Fixed now. PepperBeast (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - If you have Twinkle enabled, you can always use the 'tb' tab and select Noticeboard and select DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note: Because this was initially listed without Batreeq as an opposing party (the listing party added Batreeq only after the request was posted), no summary section was created by the listing bot for Batreeq. Batreeq has been notified, and has even edited this listing to clear up some links, but probably does not realize that we are waiting for a response. I'll drop a note at their talk page. I will not, however, be taking this case as a volunteer. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment - Intriguingly, I'm not able to find any guideline or essay in project space about potentially POV things in footnotes. My instinct is that if there is an NPOV concern, then the cautious route is to address it in the article proper. Any thoughts from the editors? Xavexgoem (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
My feeling is that if it doesn't belong in the article, it doesn't belong in the footnotes, either. Obviously, religion-based opinion about why Mirza Ghulam Ahmad doesn't count isn't NPOV. Making that a footnote doesn't make it any more appropriate. PepperBeast (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, Xavexgoem. I disagree with Pepperbeast. The well-cited factual note I added to the article documents a viewpoint held by the majority of Muslims. I believe documenting this is important, because Wikipedia aims to be "the sum of all human knowledge" (from WP:PURPOSE). As such, "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia" (from WP:UNCENSORED). Thank you, – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 06:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer note @DRN volunteers: - Is anyone available to moderate this case, or should the editors be told to use a Request for Comments, or should it be closed for lack of a moderator? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I think an RfC is a better option. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm unlikely to take it any further. I've made multiple attempts to get help with this issue. Nobody seems interested. PepperBeast (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm definitely interested – I wouldn't comment if I weren't! Here are my concerns:
  • Binary, either/or disputes (there is a footnote/there isn't a footnote) are incredibly hard to mediate.
  • I'm not swayed by the policies currently cited in the dispute. Or rather, I'm not swayed by the way they're being cited.
  • Policy is vague on this. An RfC will bring in more outside voices. We only bring in one, and can't really take sides. An RfC might help clear up the matter for the future, too.
I can mediate this, but that will become frustrating slowly. Or I can offer a third opinion, if you want your frustration fast :) Xavexgoem (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

User talk:LordOfPens

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Lethargilistic on 23:08, 8 November 2018 (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

Firstly, there is no singular talk page discussion for this issue because the user in question has resisted talking about it. I linked to LordOfPens' talk page so that you can see that multiple users, including myself, have tried to engage them about this behavior that has been ongoing for at least a year. I'm raising this issue here because they stopped responding on Talk:Free software movement. I checked and found their long history of this behavior and that that they continued moving other pages after I talked to them yesterday. Because of its unusual decentralization, I hope that will be sufficient.

Essentially, LordOfPens has spent the past year moving articles to add hyphenation to their names because they believe that there is an objective grammar rule that requires this. They have also been mass-editing article bodies to this effect.

I and others have pointed them to WP:COMMONNAME in cases like car part names, to which they say "Tesla has various grammatical errors in its English pages. This does not mean we Wikipedia should propagate Tesla's marketing department's English errors as an encyclopedia." in an edit summary.

Obviously, I have an opinion about how the rule should be applied, quite particularly in the cases of free software or public domain equivalent license, but LordOfPens' current strategy seems to be mass editing with minimal communication when questioned before moving on to other disparate articles to do the same there. I hope we can come to a consensus about whether or not this behavior should continue, and decide on an appropriate process to follow if it should.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried engaging them on Talk:Free software movement, but that is only the two of us and would not reach consensus even if they responded again. I found a similar attempt at discussion on Tesla Model 3, but they did not respond to that. Then there are the multiple messages to this effect on LordOfPens' talk page, as linked above and not responded to.

How do you think we can help?

I think this needs a centralized discussion and resolution as to how LordOfPens should go about this crusade of theirs. Because of the breadth of the articles they are moving, I don't think just doing it and appealing to supposedly objective grammar rules when questioned is appropriate or sustainable for their project, even assuming for the sake of arguments there are articles out there that would benefit from this hyphenation.

Summary of dispute by LordOfPens

Like the comma, period, and semi-colon, the hyphen has well-defined rules governing its usage in English, which is also explicitly defined in Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

I am of the opinion that Wikipedia's English articles' titles should comply with proper English and the Manual of Style, regardless of how a given article was initially titled. There are multiple reasons for this, including:

  • Many people do not understand how to use hyphens, so they avoid using the punctuation character; this has resulted in many articles in Wikipedia being improperly punctuated upon creation
  • I view Wikipedia as a long-term reference of human knowledge, so I consider the titles for any existing article today to not be set in stone (in terms of punctuation)
  • I do not view the editing of punctuation in an article's title to be significantly different than editing punctuation in an article's body, to the point that warrants creating a Wikipedia Talk entry for each article, and waiting for feedback (regarding well-defined punctuation usage) for each article before continuing with the title change

Regarding a license for free software (free-software license), "free software" is being used to modify the improper noun "license", hence the compound modifier should contain a hyphen. Note that the usage of "free" in this context refers to freedom, not pricing—this means there exists "free free-software licenses", and "non-free free-software licenses" (not "free free software licenses" and "non free free software licenses").

Regarding the movement on free software (free-software movement), "free software" is being used to modify the improper noun "movement", hence the compound modifier should contain a hyphen.

Regarding a license that grants similar rights as licenses in the public domain (public-domain-equivalent license), "public-domain equivalent" is being used to modify the improper noun "license", hence the compound modifier should contain an additional hyphen.

User talk:LordOfPens discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - The filing editor has properly notified the other editor. This is not the typical case, because it does not involve a single article. However, if the filing editor and the other editor are willing to engage in moderated discussion understanding that this is a content dispute affecting multiple articles, and that the Manual of Style must either be followed as written or formally modified by a Request for Comments, I am willing to act as the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am fine with discussing this in terms of the MOS. lethargilistic (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I, too, am open to discussing this in terms of Wikipedia's current Manual of Style. LordOfPens (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - Waiting for response from User:LordOfPens. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I am opening this case for discussion, to focus at this time on general principles, not on specific articles. Specific articles can be discussed on their article talk pages. If discussion at an article talk page becomes lengthy and inconclusive, we can move it to this forum. However, do not edit the articles in question for now. You may discuss the articles on the article talk pages, but we should agree that any edits to articles should only take place after consensus on the talk page. Read my rules for moderated discussion and comply with them. Now I will ask each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they think the underlying issues are about hyphenation and article content and titles that are the basis of disagreement. We have already agreed that the Manual of Style governs. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ready for responses from User:Lethargilistic and User:LordOfPens. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

First statements by editors

I personally believe that many people do not understand how to properly use many punctuation characters—particularly, the hyphen, en dash, and em dash. As such, this segment of people are hostile towards the usage of these punctuation characters, and will actively remove them. I am of the view that the three referenced article titles above are in English, are subject to the grammatical rules of English, and are improper nouns with compound modifiers with well-defined punctuation rules both in English and Wikipedia's English Manual of Style. Therefore, the three articles should contain hyphens in their titles. LordOfPens (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, Wikipeida is descriptive and not prescriptive. That is, it is a reflection of the world as it is, not the world as Wikipedians would like to see it. It is not the place of Wikipedians to tell outside groups that their spelling is incorrect. I think the main source of my contention is that the sorts of names (groups and products) at-issue are treated by their constituents as proper nouns in effect and in all ways aside capitalization. To be abstract, consider something called the "good pens movement" that advocates for "good pens." Because "good pens" is understood to be one important unit by the group in question, I would equate the change of "good pens certificate" to "good-pens certificate" as akin to the MOS's example of an incorrect WP:HYPHEN, "Middle Eastern cuisine" to "Middle-Eastern cuisine." This is not true for somewhat-or-completely synthetic construtions from those names (think "good-pens-certified conference"), and I see significant room for compromise in such cases. lethargilistic (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If these three articles' titles are proper nouns, then they should edited to reflect that. LordOfPens (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

User:Lethargilistic writes that Wikipedia should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Does User:LordOfPens agree or disagree? If disagree, please explain in one paragraph.

Do both editors agree that the most commonly used name should be the primary name, and that the most commonly used form of the name should be the primary name? If not, please explain in one paragraph.

Do the editors think that renamings of articles (done by moving should be discussed first, or that they can be done boldly followed by discussion? Explain in one paragraph. Do not refer to the bold-revert-discuss cycle, because even a single revert ot a move is a move-war.

Is this discussion limited to three articles, or is this a discussion about hyphenating practices in general?

Does anyone think that the Manual of Style should be modified, or is there agreement? Please be concise about any changes.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Second statements by editors


European Graduate School

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Serenest on 04:54, 10 November 2018 (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

The European Graduate School is a graduate school that has philosophers from all over the world who supervise graduate students. The article paints it as a fraudulent and substandard school which change is blocked by one or two editors. Several editors refuse to allow the full faculty to be posted, as in the French Wikipedia page [] (after all it is European). The nature of the school is mis-characterized as the short seminars are emphasized, and not the graduate supervision. There is a group of editors who seem to have holier than thou attitudes, and every one is kind of fed up with each other.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I recently opened a talk discussion page on the issue, and was told everything has been discussed to death, and there was no appetite for discussing it anymore.

How do you think we can help?

I am hopeful that reasonable people can see clear to update the site with the relevant information and make the article clear and useful to readers as is the French site, not unbalanced with undue weight given to paranoid suspicions.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

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

Summary of dispute by Solarmancer

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

Summary of dispute by Bjerrebæk

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

Talk:European Graduate_School discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Hi, I'm Steve, a volunteer here at DRN. I'll be helping out with this dispute. I have done some research on this item, and I understand this is the current text that is under dispute:

Breaking this down to what is supported and not supported in references:

1. EGS is licensed as a university in Malta... - this statement is supported in the reference provided. In addition, their is a copy of their University License issued by the National Commission for Higher Education Malta, allowing them to operate in Valetta, and Switzerland on their website.

2. and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates,[9] but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland.[10] ... - references this page [1], translated here (for my benefit, I don't understand French!). The link that The translated text says:

The private law foundation EGS European Graduate School Foundation offers tertiary level training programs in Malta and Valais (summer campus in Saas-Fee) in the following areas: Human Sciences, Health and Society (AHS) and Philosophy, Art & Critical Thinking (PACT). The canton of Valais is a founding member and has a representative sitting on the Board of its foundation. The titles issued by EGS have been accredited since 28 February 2016 by the National Commission for Higher Education of the State of Malta. As this school is not accredited within the meaning of the Federal Law on the Encouragement of Universities of 30 September 2011, the diplomas obtained from EGS do not give free access to the Swiss university system.

Breaking down the bolded items in the above, I read these items:

"The canton of Valais is a founding member and has a representative sitting on the Board of its foundation." (again, translated). To me, this states that the canton may have a representative on the Board, but that does not explicitly mean it is overall recognised as an institution by the canton, and I don't believe there is sufficient citations to support the text "and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates". There are approx 350,000 people in this canton, having a citizen of the canton on the board does not equal recognition. The spreadsheet with the description of EGS as having canton approval by the State of Texas is not sufficient either alone.

Regarding this text:

but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland. - again, this seems to be based on the fact they are not listed on the a page by the Swiss University Conference, which lists some Swiss universities. I reviewed the law cited in the translated VS page, which is here, and it appears that by description of the text, they have not been accredited by any Swiss accreditation organisation. However, I recommend it would be more appropriate to stick to referencing the actual text, which states "As this school is not accredited within the meaning of the Federal Law on the Encouragement of Universities of 30 September 2011, the diplomas obtained from EGS do not give free access to the Swiss university system."

Lastly, the Texas sentence is definitely undue weight and gives the reader the impression that the university is dodgy/fraudulent/illegal, which in reality it hasn't been accredited/their Maltese accreditation isn't recognised in Texas. The source (which is a spreadsheet) referenced explicitly states "Institutions may be authorized in other states or countries. Inclusion on this list should not be interpreted as limiting other jurisdictions' recognition of degrees from an institution. Texas law only applies to activities in Texas." The way the article is written does not make that clear, and for that reason should not be included.

I would recommend the paragraph be shortened and replaced to:

Welcome your thoughts. Steven Crossin 06:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Just a note, I spotted this diff from 26 Oct this year [4]. The text at that time said:

This is closer to the mark, but still, "It is recognised as a university institute in the Canton of Valais where one of its two campuses is located" - this isn't in the source quoted as per above explanation by me. Let's keep it simple - "Founded in Switzerland, the School operates on two locations: Saas-Fee, Switzerland, and Valletta, Malta. It is accredited as a university, but does not hold federal recognition as a university in Switzerland." Steven Crossin 06:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:BTS (band)

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by on 23:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC).

The Students%27_Union_at_UWE

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by PompeyTheGreat on 20:21, 15 November 2018 (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

It was agreed by editors not to move this page on the talk page, someone has done so, it was agreed by editors to remove a list of offices and elected reps as it did not meet the requirements for an encyclopedia and they were since readded without anyone commenting on the talk page. I suspect that some of the editing on this page may have been done by the marketing department of this students union as several passages of the article are sourced only from the SU website and appear overly promotional.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Removed content, posted on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

Help reverse any editing by marketing staff who are not independent and ensure that the decisions agreed by multiple editors on the talk page are kept and not reversed without discussion in contravention of wiki rules.

The Students%27_Union_at_UWE discussion

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