Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
|Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread •|
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 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 guidelines and policy when discussing issues. 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.
|Do you need assistance?||Would you like to help?|
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
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:
|Case||Created||Last volunteer edit||Last modified|
|Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion.||7Closed||Urutine32 (t)||14 days, 9 hours||KSFT (t)||9 days,||KSFT (t)||9 days,|
|Talk:SIG MCX#Criminal Use||1New||Felsic2 (t)||3 days, 3 hours||Robert McClenon (t)||15 hours||Robert McClenon (t)||15 hours|
|Talk:Arrow (season 1)#First name or last name?||1New||HamedH94 (t)||1 days, 12 hours||Robert McClenon (t)||14 hours||Robert McClenon (t)||14 hours|
|Stoney (album)||1New||Cotton2 (t)||1 hours||None||n/a||Jax 0677 (t)||47 minutes|
Archived DRN Cases
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
|This page is archived by.|
- 1 Current disputes
- 1.1 Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion.
- 1.2 Talk:SIG MCX#Criminal Use
- 1.2.1 Summary of dispute by Faceless Enemy
- 1.2.2 Summary of dispute by Miguel Escopeta
- 1.2.3 Summary of dispute by Herr Gruber
- 1.2.4 Summary of dispute by RunnyAmiga
- 1.2.5 Summary of dispute by DHeyward
- 1.2.6 Summary of dispute by Therubicon
- 1.2.7 Summary of dispute by Thomas.W
- 1.2.8 Talk:SIG MCX#Criminal Use discussion
- 1.3 Talk:Arrow (season 1)#First name or last name?
- 1.3.1 Summary of dispute by AussieLegend
- 1.3.2 Summary of dispute by TenTonParasol
- 1.3.3 Summary of dispute by Bignole
- 1.3.4 Summary of dispute by Adamstom.97
- 1.3.5 Summary of dispute by AlexTheWhovian
- 1.3.6 Summary of dispute by Geraldo Perez
- 1.3.7 Talk:Arrow (season 1)#First name or last name? discussion
- 1.4 Stoney (album)
Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion.
|Both involved editors, including the one who filed the case, have refused to participate. I do not recommend formal mediation, because it seems likely that they will refuse to participate again. It is not clear whether the issue has been resolved. If it hasn't, I recommend an RFC. KSFTC 17:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)|
Talk:SIG MCX#Criminal Use
|General close. There are too many comments on contributors, and there doesn't appear to be much interest in sticking to a discussion of content. If the editors do want to discuss content only, they may request formal mediation, where a trained mediator may be able to demand that they stick absolutely to content. Alternatively, if there is a content issue, a Request for Comments can be published. Since discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion of firearms legislation, any conduct issues should probably be taken to arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)|
Talk:Arrow (season 1)#First name or last name?
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- HamedH94 (talk · contribs)
- AussieLegend (talk · contribs)
- TenTonParasol (talk · contribs)
- Bignole (talk · contribs)
- Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs)
- AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs)
- Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs)
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)|
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.
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)
|Post in your own section. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)|
Summary of dispute by Bignole
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)
Summary of dispute by Adamstom.97
Summary of dispute by AlexTheWhovian
Summary of dispute by Geraldo Perez
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)
Talk:Arrow (season 1)#First name or last name? discussion
- 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)
- Volunteer note - Comment in your own sections only, and comment only on content, not on contributors. If there is any more back-and-forth prior to the opening of moderated discussion, I may have to fail this thread. Until discussion is opened, take any back-and-forth discussion to the article talk page. (When it is opened, follow moderator instructions.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Question - The hatting collapse of Hamed's comment in the section for my summary dispute includes the second paragraph of my summary dispute. Is that included in the above caution? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
|Procedural close as not a proper topic for DRN as a deletion question. The proper forum at this point is Articles for deletion. Speedy deletion as A7 was requested, and was disputed. Proposed deletion, which is for uncontroversial deletions, was then requested, and the tag was also removed. The second application of the PROD tag to the article was incorrect. The second removal of the PROD tag does not count toward 3RR, but 3RR isn't applicable anyway, in my opinion, because speedy deletion and proposed deletion are two different issues. The next step for the filing editor, if they think that the article should be deleted, is Articles for deletion. DRN doesn't handle issues for which there is another forum, and AFD is another forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)|