Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRN)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:DRN" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:DNR.
Skip to threads Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread(purge cache)
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 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.

The current co-ordinator is TransporterMan (talk · contribs · email).

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.

  • Refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment only on the contributions not the contributor. 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.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
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
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 17:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Current disputes[edit]

Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion.[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.

Talk:SIG MCX#Criminal Use[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Felsic2 on 14:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC).

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

Symbol wait old.png – 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

Users involved

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)
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)

Summary of dispute by Bignole[edit]

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[edit]

Summary of dispute by AlexTheWhovian[edit]

Summary of dispute by Geraldo Perez[edit]

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[edit]

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)
  • 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)
If the hatted material in your section was meant to be part of your statement, you may move it to below the hat. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Stoney (album)[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Cotton2 on 16:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC).