Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

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, 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, 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 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. 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 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), 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
Rafida	In Progress	Albertatiran (t)	32 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	13 hours	Albertatiran (t)	10 hours
Methylphenidate	Closed	Димитрий Улянов Иванов (t)	8 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 19 hours
AT&T Corporation	Closed	Emiya1980 (t)	2 days, 16 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 21 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 21 hours

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 02:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Urutine32 on 08:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Urutine32 (talk · contribs) Signedzzz (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Signedzzz deleted all changes I made to two sections about modern-day public opinion and contemporary era that were not previously opposed by any other user. I asked for a third opinion because he refused to give any explanation for these sections (we engaged in discussion previously only for other issues I don’t bring here, which are the sections about the Tang Dynasty and deterrence). Thanks to the third opinion intervention, I understood that some changes I made to the contemporary era were badly sourced. But I still believe the current versions of these two sections restored by Signedzzz are worse, and contain unsourced materials, while Signedzzz believes that "none" of the changes I propose are "an improvement". Have you tried to resolve this previously? Yes, Vanamonde93 came for third opinion. He "strongly" recommended me to make a list of my proposals so we can "work through them", but after I published only the proposals for modern-day public opinion, Signedzzz contended "Urutine32, you know none of this is going in the article. In fact it is probably enough to get you banned from editing. Please stop wasting my time." After that, Vanamonde93 declined to further intervene, and suggested me to put the issue to this board in his talk page. How do you think we can help? Help me to known why Signedzzz opposes the changes I propose, especially for the section about modern-day public opinion, so I can make the necessary changes. Summary of dispute by Signedzzz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. (Redacted) @Signedzzz: Again, this noticeboard is for content disputes only. Personal attacks are never allowed on Wikipedia, and they are especially unhelpful in dispute resolution. If you are willing to participate, summarize the dispute here without making personal attacks. KSFTC 21:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC) It's not a "personal attack", it's a "summary of dispute", as requested. And I don't see what there is to add. zzz (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC) @Urutine32: stop posting on my talk page, as I told you before. zzz (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion. discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. There has been some discussion on the talk page, and the other involved user has been notified. Signedzzz, if you are willing to participate in this dispute resolution, the case can be opened. If you are, summarize the dispute in the labeled section above. Some of this dispute seems to be about user conduct. That part will not be discussed here. KSFTC 11:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - I will add a few basic comments to what the moderator has said. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements are common but do not clarify the issues, and civility is always required. Comment on content, not on contributors. One of the reasons for this noticeboard is to resolve content disputes that sometimes result in conduct issues, but often resolving the content issue resolves everything. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC) @Signedzzz: You commented above, but you have not summarized the dispute to be discussed here, which is about content. If you are not willing to participate in this discussion, let me know. KSFTC 22:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC) As I said, I don't see what else to add. Just to be clear, I (and several other users) oppose the user's edits and proposed edits to this article. zzz (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC) I don't know whether seeking a formal mediation in this case would be appropriate. Urutine32 (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC) I removed some off-topic comments above. This discussion is about content. Signedzzz, can you concisely explain why you don't like the edits? Urutine32, I might recommend formal mediation if a discussion here about the issue here fails to resolve it. KSFTC 20:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC) I believe this discussion will never results in resolution of the dispute, so I ask for closing it. Thank you. Urutine32 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC) I wish you wouldn't give up so easily, but if you're sure you want it closed and preferably have another way to resolve the dispute, I'll close it. KSFTC 19:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC) I don't know how we can progress if the other editor did not even issue a dispute summary. Urutine32 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2016 (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.

Talk:SIG MCX#Criminal Use

– New discussion.

Filed by Felsic2 on 14:46, 22 July 2016 (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 Talk:SIG MCX#Criminal Use (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Felsic2 (talk · contribs) Faceless Enemy (talk · contribs) Miguel Escopeta (talk · contribs) Herr Gruber (talk · contribs) RunnyAmiga (talk · contribs) DHeyward (talk · contribs) Therubicon (talk · contribs) Thomas.W (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a dispute over whether to mention the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, the worst mass shooting in modern US history, in the article about the main weapon used, the SIG MCX. The weapon's use has been discussed in many reliable, mainstream sources, has affected the sucess of the manufacturer, and has been a factor in the passage of gun control legislation. The MCX article was only created following the shooting, and the weapon is not especially notable for anything else. No one has suggested any compromise text. @Felsic2: I think I've asked this before so if you've answered it, I didn't see it and I'll retire in shame. To you, SIG MCX right now doesn't pass muster because the Orlando shooting isn't mentioned there. If someone had created it exactly like it is now before the shooting, would you have nominated it for deletion? I honestly believe the non-Orlando sources I found (linked below) confer notability. Am I wrong? Aren't Guns and Ammo, American Rifleman, etc. reliable sources with enough visibility that they confer notability? RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC) @RunnyAmiga: No need to retire. Perhaps I should have left out the part about the article being created as a result of the shooting. Ultimately, that doesn't matter. While the MCX may meet the notability threshold based purely on publications devoted to firearms, in the general mainstream the weapon is only known for this one event. The core issue, I believe, is compliance with WP:NPOV and specifically WP:DUE. If there are a hundred sources talking about the weapon in the context of the Orlando shooting, then we're violating NPOV by omitting that information. A secondary but related issue, which I've amended below, is the determination of which sources may be used for weapons articles. If we exclude material about real-world uses of the weapon, and if we exclude mainstream sources, then we're creating a walled garden of interest only to gun enthusiasts and collectors. Felsic2 (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC) If we get rid of stuff that has no interest to anybody outside of enthusiasts, I'll get to work deleting about 90% of all articles on here about anime because I, like a majority of people, don't watch anime and I don't understand almost any of that stuff. This seems to be decently-sourced but is this anything anybody but the most hardcore fans care about? Nobody's disputing that we can't use non-criminal mainstream attention as a standard because for all but a few guns, there's really no such thing. And if you're right, that real-world usage and subsequent media attention are what determine notability, you're talking about going down a really, really dark path because we'd have to have some kind of minimum standard. If a wife comes home and shoots her cheating husband and his mistress with, to take a redlink example, a Mauser P04 Naval Luger, that obviously wouldn't count. But what would? Seriously: in your head right now, come up with an answer. And before you type something up, are you sure that's where the line should be, and had the crime been just a tiny bit less severe, or had one fewer article been published in the paper, that would be the difference maker between creating an article and not creating one? RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Oops, this should wait until the volunteer starts the case I'm generally OK with keeping the enthusiast-type material, though some articles devote a lot of space to minor variations and trivia like coatings. But I don't see any reason to exclude material of interest to the general reader either. Again, the notability and article creation issues are not at the core of the dispute, in my opinion. Regardless of whether a firearm was already notable and whether an article had already been written about it, famous uses of that firearm should be included in any comprehensive article about it. Wikipedia only records notable crimes, so we're not talking about the average "man shoots wife" crimes. Perhaps a close analogy would be the inclusion of notable citizens in an article about a city. Millions of people may live there, but we only mention the notable ones. However we do mention them, even though the article isn't about them. Likewise, gun articles include often lengthy lists of police departments and military units which are reported to own those weapons. It's entirely reasonable to devote space to users who've achieved far more notice than the Podunk PD. Felsic2 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? There has been talk page discussion. How do you think we can help? An agreement on how WP:DUE should be applied to article content would be helpful. And, whether only sources that are specifically about firearms, and written by firearms experts, can be used, or if academic references and mainstream journalism are allowed as well. Felsic2 (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Or more specifically if journalists who transparently have no idea what they're talking about (with the one you prefer to bring up containing a major error in the title of the piece) are valid sources on what they're talking about. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Faceless Enemy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Miguel Escopeta Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Herr Gruber Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC) USER:Felsic2 is a disruptive editor whose edits consist entirely of uninformed gun control POV-pushing in articles where it has no place; he wishes for a "list of crimes" section to be associated with a couple of firearms the US gun control movement currently dislikes based on ignoring the guidelines at WP:UNDUE re: recentism and the guidelines at WP:GUN re: criminal use not being notable by itself. When this was rejected by multiple editors in multiple locations he tried to sneak the same non-expert sources back in on the MCX page using a "reception" section which was mostly quoting PR fluff and wouldn't belong in the article even without those sources. His arguments generally consist of ignoring everything his opponents say and repeating what amounts to "but muh sources!" and a lot of wikilawyering. When users get frustrated at his ignoring them, he then plays the martyr card. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Regarding the claims made above: the claim that it has resulted in the passage of legislation is false (the legislation in question is 12 bills in California introduced last December), the "reliable, mainstream sources" are news articles (hence the notes regarding WP:UNDUE guidelines on recentism) written by laymen with no meaningful expertise on firearms or crime, and there is no real reason to have the section Felsic2 desires when weapons like the AK / AKM series (which have been used in even worse crimes) do not; usage sections are not a standard feature of firearms articles since reliable sources on firearms do not feature such information (even Thompson SMG devotes all of two sentences to criminal use, due to referencing a gun history book entirely about it). The rifle itself is notable for being used by special forces units and being highly successful for the manufacturer. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by RunnyAmiga To me, there are two questions about weight and notability that, if answered fairly, mean this whole thing will stay stalled. There's a solution but it's not this infinite back-and-forth between everybody listed here. 1. Had the MCX not been Mateen's primary gun, would it get an article? Felsic2 seems to believe no; I disagree. There are reviews from reliable publications (Guns and Ammo, Gun Digest, etc.) that ought to be enough to say it's notable. That the MCX didn't have an article until shortly after the shooting proves little except how behind Wikipedia is on this topic. 2. Had Mateen's primary gun been an obscure, rare gun built by a boutique company, would it get an article? Consensus seems to be no; I disagree. This discussion can get grounded in policy until it's dust yet it would still be strange that a gun that suddenly faced publicity like this wouldn't be considered notable. And if this is correct, then so is Felsic2: it makes no sense that this media firestorm doesn't get a word. This whole thing could have been avoided if Wikipedia had a few high-output editors who specialize in firearms. I don't know if it's possible to recruit people like that but if it is, we should. Barring that, the encyclopedia will suffer because the SIG MCX article, and probably lots of others like it, should have been created long before June 20. That said, I moved away from that discussion primarily because the pile-on by (mostly) Herr Gruber, Miguel Escopeta, and Thomas.W was, for lack of a better phrase, fucking gross. (Here's a microcosm: "[t]rying to cheat your way around the WP:GUN policy," "fanboy cruft," "you're just a big time sink for other editors..." Do any of you actually read this shit before you post it?) Even with this escalation to dispute resolution, it's inevitable that these editors are about to come in, re-state everything, refuse to compromise, throw bombs, and accomplish nothing. RunnyAmiga (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion hidden. Keep comments here to a minimum until a volunteer opens the case, and then follow the instructions of the volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC) I'm glad you think I'm fucking gross. :D In context, what was happening there was that Felsic was trying to get around the WP:GUN guideline on criminal use ("resulted in legislation") by using bills introduced in California last December that had nothing to do with any feature the MCX used in the Florida shooting actually had. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC) @Herr Gruber: in your first sentence there, please change "I'm" to "my behavior is" because I don't know anything about you personally. I imagine you're a pretty cool person in real life. I like everybody I meet until I'm given a reason not to. What I know about you is related to your behavior on here, and I have to say: you look for fights, dude. Your behavior is fucking gross and as if to prove it, it's like you went through my list of predictions up there and tried to singlehandedly fulfill all five: "...these editors are about to come in..." And here you are. You were invited and you showed up to speak your piece. So far, so good. "...re-state everything..." You've done this twice. First in your summary up there, which is fine since that's what you were supposed to do, and second in your reply to me. Going on context clues, I'm honestly wondering if you read anything I've said in any of these discussions. Did you just scan the other stuff? Why are you explaining things that I both understand and almost entirely agree with? "...refuse to compromise..." Book it. "...throw bombs..." Dude. Herr Gruber. Duuuuude. You just posted an attack so nasty, personal, and useless that a passing editor felt compelled to neatly collapse it into a little green box, never to be seen again. That was nice of you, Robert McClenon! Thanks! "...and accomplish nothing." This remains to be seen but if everyone, Felsic2 included, doesn't agree to give anything on anything, I'll go five-for-five here. Do me a favor. Prove me wrong. I sincerely want to be wrong. I want everybody to totally dunk on me because I thought I was so smart and I guessed wrong about everything that mattered. RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DHeyward Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Therubicon Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Thomas.W I'll write a longer comment tomorrow, when I expect to have more time, but I want to point out that this isn't just about the SIG MCX but just as much about the AR-15, where Felsic2 has been pushing the exact same agenda for quite some time now, refusing to listen to what other editors say, refusing to accept that other editors don't share their opinion, and either not being able to understand what they're being told when pointed to policies (in this case primarily WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS), or not wanting to understand what they're being told. Just like on SIG MCX. Making it, IMHO, a clear case of both tendentious editing and refusal to get the point. Thomas.W talk 19:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. @Robert McClenon: This has long since ceased to be about content (please see the endless discussions on Talk:AR-15 and Talk:SIG MCX where Felsic2 is repeating the same arguments and questions over and over again, even after getting relevant answers to the questions and being pointed to relevant policies), it's about a tendentious single-purpose editor refusing to accept that they get no support (or on Talk:SIG MCX not enough support) on the talk page of either article to get their way. Thomas.W talk 20:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Since my comment (which is highly relevant since this is all about conduct and not content, the content discussion having finished long ago, with no support for Felsic2's views) got hatted I see no reason to spend more time and energy on this, at least not here. Thomas.W talk Talk:SIG MCX#Criminal Use discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - The preconditions for discussion here have been met, consisting of inconclusive discussion on the article talk page and notice to the other editors of this filing. Participation in this forum is voluntary, so we are waiting for responses from the other editors. Due to the large number of editors, if discussion here is also inconclusive, formal mediation may be considered. Editors are reminded that to be civil and concise, both on the article talk page and here. Editors are reminded that any discussion of firearms control legislation or gun politics is subject to discretionary sanctions (but that is a procedure for expedited sanctions against disruptive or tendentious editing, not for suppressing collaborative editing). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - Will the editors please keep their comments prior to the case being opened to a minimum, and confine them to content? I have one question for each editor before a moderator opens the case: Are each of you willing to engage in moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC) I don't really see the point; there's already a consensus here that Felsic's edits do not belong on the page, he seems to just be trying to go somewhere else to get someone to overrule that. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2016 (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.

ill-considered accusations of impropriety

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kamel Tebaast on 17:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

Talk:Arrow (season 1)#First name or last name?

– New discussion.

Filed by HamedH94 on 05:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Arrow (season 1)#First name or last name? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HamedH94 (talk · contribs)
• AussieLegend (talk · contribs)
• TenTonParasol (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

my argument is that according to WP:FORMAL, it's better to use last names for characters, including fictional ones, as much as we can, though it's not mandatory since WP:FORMAL is an essay. the opposite party's main argument is that we should mention the characters the way they're called more often in the script of the work of fiction itself, while they fail to say why and according to what.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

we've discussed it extensively at the talk page as you can see. they have stated irrational arguments and then left the discussion. they refuse to talk while they want to enforce their position.

How do you think we can help?

maybe as more experienced wikipedians, you can find a compromise. because i'm tired of repeating the obvious.

Summary of dispute by AussieLegend

I am not sure why HamedH94 has chosen to list only TenTonParasol and I here. There have been four other editors involved in the discussion, including Bignole, the editor with whom HamedH94 had the original dispute. For the most part I share TenTonParasol's opinion. Despite a long, somewhat circular discussion, HamedH94 has failed to convince six other editors that the article should change to using his preferred method of referring to fictional characters by their last name, when the convention is to refer to such characters by the name that is most commonly used when referring to them. That HamedH94 refers to the opinions of multiple editors as "irrational arguments" is at least part of the reason why other editors do not wish to engage with him. Personally, I do not think this discussion can achieve anything without input from all seven involved editors. The opinions of the four other editors cannot be disregarded. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Post in your own section. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

there are currently two main opponents. if the others follow the talk page, they've seen my last comment and can join any time. since I can't "convince" you guys, I've come here. I'll leave a message at the other users' talk pages too. --HamedH94 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Just an FYI, you're not supposed to be posting in this section. Please note I will be taking this page off my watchlist until the other four have joined in. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC) this is done in previous cases. I'll invite others, but I can't force them to participate, like I can't force you. remove this page from wherever you want. if you refuse to talk and continue to revert my pertinent edits after the case is closed, I'll have no choice but to complain you at ANI. --HamedH94 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TenTonParasol

I've held, counter to Hamed's position, if a fictional character is most commonly referred to or is most recognized by first name, the article may use first name (even if there are no family characters to disambiguate) to be most understandable to as broad an audience as possible, especially if the last name is rarely used. I felt WP:TECHNICAL is applicable here (especially per its citation in WP:BCLASS), though I understand not all will agree fictional characters' names are part of the "technical" aspects of an article about fiction. WP:FORMAL encourages using conventions set by reliable resources, and in my experience, academic writings often refer to character by first name. A fair number of our FAs, FLs, and GAs also refer to characters by first name if it is a name the character is very commonly referred to or recognized by. While I understand these articles are not perfect, this suggests that what is acceptable does not preclude a first name usage. I have stressed that if there is a local consensus to use last names, I have no problem, but my position is that a formal tone does not automatically exclude a first name usage when a fictional character is most commonly referred to or is most recognized by that name. Despite all this, Hamed continues to state that I have cited nothing to support my argument and that my statements are irrational, unfounded, and wholly irrelevant.

Post in your own section. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have felt no further need for discussion because the discussion thread has gotten highly repetitive and I see no need to retread the same ground a third or fourth time. I also feel that Hamed has not sufficiently refuted my argument. At the very least, speaking as an involved editor, I feel that there has been no consensus, and in that case, status quo (first name usage) on the article is to remain, and Hamed has edited the article to reflect his position despite this, saying that no further comment opposing his argument means that consensus has moved in his favor. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC) now you've invented a new meaning for "technical" too, since I don't understand how you consider last names technical stuff. and the COMMONSENSE that you used, can be used against that "conventions set by reliable resources" stuff since we really need to make an exception for the problem about academia that I extensively described at the talk page. and again, FA criteria don't include essays. so you haven't actually cited anything valid. I "assumed" a consensus after everyone left since there was no other option at the time. that's why we're here now. --HamedH94 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Per the note instructing to keep discussion to a minimum, I am not responding to the above comment until this is officially opened. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Arrow (season 1)#First name or last name? discussion

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

• Volunteer note - The preconditions have been met, in that there there has been extended inconclusive discussion on the talk page, and the other editors have been notified. Waiting for responses from the other editors, since participation here is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I stopped participating in the discussion on the talk page as I made my points there and saw nothing related to anything I stated made to refute them. My lack of continued involvement there does not mean I changed my position, I just judged further participation would have little value. Use of common names in works of fiction is well-supported by policy and practice. Even for works of non-fiction, people don't always get referred to by their last name, lots of examples of how what is proper tone to refer to an individual varies and and where first name referrals is proper. I agree with the opening statements by AussieLegend and TenTonParasol. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - My words are best summarized by Geraldo. I think that Hamed has mischaracterized that happened. People did not "stop talking" and just "simply" revert. Everyone provided their rationale, Hamed refused to acknowledge the consensus and proceeded to edit the way they wanted, while stating "no other comments so I guess you all agree with me." What Hamed fails to realize is that consensus is not predicated on senseless, never-ending discussion that circles the same points over and over again. People can effectively lobby their positions and move on from the discussion. At the end of the day, Hamed has been the only one fighting against what every other editors has been saying and doing. There have been countless examples provided, explanations of guidelines, direct exerts pulled, etc. Hamed is sticking with their interpretation of what specific from WP:FORMAL that does not actually explicitly contradict the edits in question in the first place. If someone wants to know what I think, my comments on are the talk page of the original article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)