Wikipedia:Requests for comment

For general comments and feedback, use Wikipedia:Village pump, and choose the proper subsection.

Ultimately, the content of Wikipedia is determined by making progress toward a community consensus. However, the size of Wikipedia prevents community members from actively following every development. As a result, sometimes it's useful to request broader opinions from the rest of the community.

This page is a way that anyone can request other Wikipedians to help them resolve difficulties and disputes in articles or talk pages. Anyone may visit any of these articles, to help them reach agreement. A good quality RfC can help contributors resolve differences, add different insights, give comments and opinions on how others might see some wording, and so on. When listing a dispute here, you should also place a notice on the appropriate talk page.

It will help the RFC process if everyone who lists something on this page tries to help out at least one other page listed here.

Overview

When to use an article RfC

RFC is appropriate when you want other Wikipedians to visit the page, to allow a consensus or a better quality of decision, to help resolve a dispute or break a deadlock.

Before adding an entry here:

• Whatever the nature of the dispute, the first resort should always be to discuss the problem with the other user. Try to resolve the dispute on your own first.
• Don't forget to follow Wikiquette. Wikiquette is more important in resolving a dispute, not less.

User conduct RfC

• For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by diffs showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours. The diffs should not simply show evidence of the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The two users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
• Note that some may view an RFC not as a simple "request for comment" but as the first step toward arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor. It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly.

Alternatives to RfC

• If the dispute involves allegations that a user has engaged in serious violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, create a subpage for the dispute. Use the subpage to elaborate on the allegations.
• If you are in deadlock with just one other user, consider getting a third opinion.
• For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Wikiquette alerts are an option for a quick, streamlined way to get an outside view. The goal is to nip potential problems in the bud.
• To request votes instead of comments, consider a listing on Wikipedia:Current Surveys.
• If you want help in getting an article up to Featured status, then list it at Peer review. Note that Peer review is not for listing content disputes.

How to use RfC

• To request other users to comment on an issue, add a link to the Talk page for the article, a brief neutral statement of the issue, and the date.
• Only with the date, don't list the details, and don't submit arguments or assign blame.
• On the Talk page of the article, it can help to summarize the dispute.

Responding to RfCs

• Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and keep calm.
• Mediate where possible - identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.
• If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies.

Article content disputes

List links to talk pages where participants cannot reach consensus and are thus stalling progress on the article. Discussions with no recent comments may have dried up, and will be removed.

1. List newer entries on top.
2. Link to the Talk page.
3. Sign entries with the date only. Use five tildes: ~~~~~.

Images

• Talk:Arthur_Wellesley,_8th_Duke_of_Wellington - A distressful situation in need of urgent attention by those familiar w image policy, and/or the crown copyright. 13:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Vancouver Skybridge - a dispute over a photo of the bridge, which contains two topless women in it, should be used, cropped or deleted all together. 12:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy

• Adi Shankara — there has for some time been a battle between editors who wish to state dates for Shankara that are accepted by most scholarly authorities (religious, philosophical, and historical), and those who wish to give more weight to the very different view of a set of religious institutions connected with Shankara. 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Talk:Libertarianism. There is a proposal to move the page to Libertarianism (capitalist). Should the page retain its current location (which is more in line with common use) or should "libertarianism" be a disambiguation page between the different uses, which may be fairer? 12:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

This question is not written from a NPOV, because it assumes there are different uses (that are noteworthy in an encyclopedia) of the term "libertarianism", which is a point in contention. --Serge 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Talk:Ad hominem Should the article include the fallacy "Inverted Ad Hominem"? There is concern that the term itself has very rare usage, even if it is useful. It was invented several months ago by the same person who inserted it into the Wikipedia article. He claims that recognition of the fallacy supports its own inclusion. 03:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Religion

• Emerging Church - in need of outside views (style and content somewhat entrenched in unencylopedic form). 22:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• talk:cult Which version is better? see [1] 16 July 2005
• Talk:Creation_science, Summary - dispute as to whether it should be stated as fact that "Creation Science is a pseudoscience" or if that characterization is sufficiently in dispute as to be an opinion. 18:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• History of Christianity - dispute as to whether or not Zoroastrianism should be listed as a primary influence...an anonymous user is strongly for that, claiming that the Zoroastrian faith was a key influence on Judaism. 2 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

N.b. this is a widely held view amongst historians and archaeologists concerned with mesopotamia. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)

note also Mary Boyce, Zoroastrianism, Routledge, London and New York, 2001 [in the Library of Religion Beliefs and Practices series], p 29: "Zoroastrianism was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgement, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgement, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body". 10:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)~

• Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) has been engaged in many edit wars and disputes in the last few months in regards to almost every issue, which is stunting the article's growth. The main contributers consist mostly of those who are or at one time been affiliated with the INC. I ask if we can get more third party contributers (perferably those not affiliated with INC or its detractors) who can help alleve the situation? -- June 30, 2005 01:33 (UTC)
• Talk:Joseph Smith as a Prophet: Should the article spend most of its time explaining away two of his failed prophesies? Is a list of wars since the Civil War pertinent? 29 June 2005 07:11 (UTC)
• Talk:Matthew 1, Talk:Matthew 2, Talk:Matthew 3, Talk:Matthew 4, Talk:Matthew 5. Creator of articles is adamant that they should contain the text of the entire chapter of the bible, and is willing to revert any attempt at removal. Is this in keeping with Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, or the fact that the text is already available at Wikisource ? There is also a poll at Wikipedia:Bible source text 6 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
• Centre Party Germany & Pope Pius XII & Ludwig Kaas& Talk :Pope Benedict XVI & Hitler's Pope. There is a general problem with anything touching on Pius XII , revert war , disputes , POV dubious, Google admissability , censorship , acceptance of citation , complete breakdown except of civility . This is really history in fact .
• Charles Taze Russell: One user repeatedly stating that he controls the article and reverts attempts by others to add information that doesn't conform with what he views is the official biography. Several have inserted NPOV tags, but he has reverted them. -- K. 05:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Society, Law

• Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#RfC: It is stated in entry that a group (SPLC) accuses the subject group (Mises Institute) of being "Neo-confederate". How many non-Mises people should we quote with disparaging comments about the SPLC? Any? 02:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Intellectual property: Regarding a cited article opposing intellectual property and copyrights, one user wants to note that the article bears a copyright notice. The author of the printed article believes the comment is trivial and intended to make a non-neutral criticism of or point about the author/publisher. Is it NPOV to note this fact? -- 18:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

History, Geography

• Talk:Chicago,_Illinois#Chicago_Main_Page_Picture_Vote There is a lack of consensus on which main photo to use for the Chicago, Illinois article. -- 16:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:7_July_2005_London_bombings#Conspiracy censoring information 15:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• James Earl Ray: Do recent additions endorse the theory of Ray's innocence of the murder of Martin Luther King and his having been set up by 'Raoul'? 14:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Israeli terrorism: subject to an edit war based on POV.62.253.64.14 09:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Palestinian Terrorism: Editors insist on inserting "POV" or "totallydisputed" tags on the page, but refuse to specify in Talk: exactly which parts of the article are POV or non-factual.
• Population Transfer: Editor has removed paragraph describing ethnic attacks on Greeks, and replaced it with claims of ethnic attacks and genocide by Greeks.
• Image:Serb lands03.jpg A bitter (or grotesque) dispute over the assume west border of Serbia in the 9th century. 17:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• American West | Talk was changed from a redirect to U.S. West, now located at Western United States due to a change in suggested naming conventions by WikiProject U.S. regions, into a duplicate article [2] on October 29, 2004. American West has been merged with Western United States, but no consensus has been reached over what to do with American West— redirecting to Western United States and disambiging between Western United States and Wild West, have both been proposed. -July 8, 2005 18:08 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) There is a discussion in the 'Counties again' section at the bottom of the page. A policy was agreed a year ago (see it on the Project Page) but it has been repeatedly and systematically ignored by a minority. We need to agree to abide by the policy, and we need to improve the policy if it is faulty or inadequate. The discussion is not making progress, we badly need help. 7 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)
• Talk:List of extinct languages. Is ancient Greek an extinct language? What constitutes an extinct language? Help prevent another lame edit war which resulted in at least one user being banned on the fourth of July. Lend your learned opinion. 5 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)
• At New Chronology (Fomenko) (and Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko) some editors consider the article too critical and not truly representing Fomenko's work. Other editors consider it as some of the worst examples of Pseudohistory. Specifically the point whether explicit manipulation of data has been demonstrated in Fomenko's work. Part of the problem is, that a large part of Fomenko's work is only available in Russian language. July 4, 2005 15:02 (UTC)
• I have rewritten Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan at Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan/temp in an attempt to remove POV (the original article is quite rightly tagged). I'd love to have comments from people not involved politically… Talk:Naming dispute over East Sea/Sea of Japan. Cheers. Kokiri 1 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)
• Relevancy of Hungarian name variants for Transylvanian place names Talk:Mureş and especially Talk:Harghita – Wikipedia policy seems to be to give the name variant(s) of a place (at the beginning of the article, in italics, beside the official variant in bold) which are of historical importance and/or in use by a related country, like in the case of Transylvanian place names or in the case of Alsace, where beside the official French name the German is given. On the other hand, User:Criztu considers that for Mureş the Hungarian name is not relevant, stating that it is an administrative division of Romania (which is not questioned) and Hungarian name has no historical relevance (which is debated), as he put it in his edit summaries ([3]). We tried to solve the dispute on Talk:Harghita with a more general scope. In fact, the only debated point was whether other links and references to a place (like in other articles, rather than the place names's own article) could provide alternative names different from the official Romanian one, and it seemed to be unquestioned that at the beginning of the related article relevant name variants could, or rather, should be given. In this dispute, Criztu declared, "i don't delete the Hungarian version of a place in Romania if it is mentioned in that place's article" ([4]), however, he reverted again the article Mureş a few hours later ([5]) with his above argument repeated. Other users also expressed their opinion here and none of them seemed to support Criztu's position. Please help resolve this issue. 29 June 2005 10:10 (UTC)
• Talk:Skanderbeg There is an ongoing dispute over whether Skanderbeg was part Serbian. Editors with some proficiency in Albanian or Greek would be especially helpful, as most of the sources cited by both sides are in these two languages. This issue could really use some more eyes and opinions for review.siafu 29 June 2005 17:08 (UTC)

The edit war on this page is escalating into personal attacks and incomprehensible invectives. Desperately seeking any cool-headed editors who can make sense of the issue. siafu 30 June 2005 23:45 (UTC)

Please, an editor is really needed in this topic. Tpilkati 3 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

• Talk:Apartheid There is a now two-month old dispute regarding a two-word inclusion in the section on the history of apartheid in South Africa. We really could use some fresh eyes. 17:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Tickling A User has made statement that references to Chinese tickle torture is a racial slur against Chinese people. User has challenged the source material and advocates total removal of any reference to the Chinese in the article. Comments are requested from neutral parties. - 19:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:New_Chronology_(Fomenko): the article about this theory is severe violatation of Wikipedia's principles, because it omits some of the theory's core foundation (like the fact that it has two separate parts, where first one, challenge of Scaliger's chonology, looks to Fomenko proved, while the other one -- "reconstruction", only a try to build the least conflincting history version, which he did not vouch for, but offered as variant). Plus the article contains ridiculous assertion that having or not formal historic education has something to do with ability to prove historic theories (Scaliger did not have formal historic education whatsoever, hence the classical chronology should be dismissed as pseudoscience, right?).
• Provinces of Poland: Does it make any sense to use term voivodship in regard to polish provinces? They are just provinces - administrative regions of a country. Word voivodship is not present in major english dictionaries. However, polish users insist on using this term. Some Google research was performed to investigate current usage of this (not really english) word (in english language). We'd like to have comments from native english speakers. --Wahwah 7 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)
• Template talk:Canada Is it necessray to have flags in the footer template {{canada}}? Semi revert war going on. Circeus 20:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Politics

• Talk:Monarchy in Canada – dispute over the inclusion of a quotation by Justice Rouleau of the Ontario Superior Court. 17:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Ted Kennedy – There is an ongoing dispute over the appropriateness of the inclusion of a specific external link, leading to an edit war and page protection. 11:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Terrorism – Is the current article intro too subjective? 21:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Ken Mehlman - Should article mention Mehlman's Judaism and his specific refusal to answer questions about his sexual orientation (with a proper citation)?
• Talk:Richest American politicians - Can this article ever meet standards of verifiability and completeness? As such it isn't even sourced.
• Talk:Stalinism - additions mentioning Stalinist-era terror and slave labor are repetitively removed.
• Talk:Republican Party (United States) - Revert war over whether the article should mention "Republicans in name only" (RINOs) and Log Cabin Republicans. 04:40, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:John Ashcroft — Should the article mention the term "cooking oil" in reference to the religious practice of "anointing with oil"? 22:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Al Franken: Revert war going on over possible POV language regarding Franken re-upping his Air America contract.
• Talk:Freedom Party of Ontario - dispute over the inclusion of allegations of association with homophobes, racists and neo-nazis.
• Talk:Lost Liberty Hotel (on VFD) is a hotel proposed for the site of United States Supreme Court Judge David Souter's home, as a form of political protest after the judgment in Kelo v. New London. Is the article NPOV or does it take the side of the proponent of the hotel? A secondary issue over the correct location for the article, and subsidiary issue over whether it belongs in Category:Hotels. 5 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
• Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran - POV clashes and revert warring between two editors. Other editors have attempted to intervene and mediate. Discussion initiated by one editor attempting to come to some compromise between both parties in order to achieve NPOV, which is proving to be difficult considering the contentiousness of the subject matter. 4 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)
• Talk:Phyllis Schlafly - how should her arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment be described?
• Talk:Transnistria - a dispute about a Romanian bias in the article. Gaidash 3 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)
• Talk:Mind control and Talk:New Freedom Commission on Mental Health — is the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health so important to the subject of mind control that it absolutely merits inclusion in the See Also list, at the same time that the subject of mind control is of such low importance to the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health that it doesn't merit mention until near the end?
• Talk:Price-Anderson Act — as with Nuclear Power, extensive edit warring over this article, particularly by one editor who refuses to listen to a consensus; NPOV eyes needed. July 1, 2005 20:19 (UTC) -- This topic is now in Protection about to go to Mediation. 4 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)
• Talk:Anarchism — already listed in RfC on June 19th, this article and other related ones continue to be repeatedly modified (when not protected) in what people on the opposite side of the "edit war" regard as a highly POV slant. One side wishes to cast anarchism primarily as a libertarian offshoot, while the other considers it a socialist movement. Both sides' advocates can be described as cliques, supporting one another's POV changes as NPOV. In addition, some persons have advocated edit wars and discussed the next phase of edit wars they intend to continue when the article is no longer locked. 05:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Fidel Castro — dispute over what the intro should and shouldn't mention about Castro's domestic politics. Presently stuck in tit-for-tat revert wars. 14:36, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Talk:Democratic peace theory — two editors are at loogerheads; the temperature varies from very warm to hot, and widening the editing base might help. 22:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Islamophobia - despite attempts to properly discuss edits, this page has descended into a revert war causing this page to be protected by the admins. 09:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Noam Chomsky#RFC — dispute over a speech Chomsky may, or may not, have given in Hanoi. 11:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Anarchism - edit war over the status of "Anarcho-Capitalism". One faction wishes "anarchism" to be defined in a manner that includes A/C, and to feature A/C prominently among the types of anarchism. The other faction regards "anarchism" as being socialist by definition and excluding A/C. See survey near the bottom of page. 01:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Council on American-Islamic Relations - One editor regularly inserts anti-CAIR POV and refuses to discuss edits. Are these NPOV claims for an article to make? "CAIR has a "campaign to silence critics", "CAIR has subscribed to a policy of wildly inflating the Muslim population count in the United States." Also uses the term "extremist Wahhabi", "Wahhaby lobby" (sic) 03:11, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Monarchist League of Canada - is it a fact, or an opinion, that the "Canadian Crown" is "distinctly Canadian"?20:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artistsBeatles, Presley, Jackson sales are heavily incorrect; proper analytic estimations offered.

Literature, Media, Art

• Talk:Colby Donaldson — one editor wants to include and another to exclude extensive details of the happenings on a television reality programme's final episode that determined the million dollar (USD) winner. 09:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Wolverine (comics) needs comment on the level of detail required to detail the character's powers. Please comment so we can build a consensus. 19:19, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Death By Stereo Was the punk rock group formed in 1996 or 1998? A user (Allroy - the return of Peacethruvandalism) kept reverting 1996 to 1998 and is being unconvinced with these sources ([6], [7], [8] and [9]) and thinks they are bad, but they're not. The earlier version and day it was created did say 1996. I just need help stopping the user from reverting it before doing it one for one last time and he's gonna gone (I'm guessing)! -- 01:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Surrealism User:Classicjupiter2 Revert war, open contempt for consensus, POV pushing, personal attacks. Stirling Newberry 23:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Alternative history (fiction). Ongoing revert war between Shsilver and another user, both insist their own version is correct. 14:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Serialism - Brewing revert war, vandalism of page, personal attacks, anonymous editors pushing for gang reverts. 22:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Bollywood -- Bollywood movies are made in Hindi/Hindustani; many lyrics are heavily influenced by Urdu poetry. Should actors' names and movie titles be given glosses in Arabic (Urdu) or Devanagari (Hindi) script, both, or neither? How controversial would this be, given the history of Hindu-Muslim conflict in South Asia? 20:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Natalie Wood — more trouble. This time one editor insists on removing a reference to claims made in a book on Wood on the grounds that it's a reference to a third-party's opinion. 22:26, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours Was this Green Day album released in 1990 or 1991? And should 39/Smooth have a seperate page or redirect here? -- 20:45, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal/Pornography is this appropriate? If it is, what should go in it to be NPOV? 8 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
• Talk:Infotainment - Questions about the appropriate title for this article, and vocabulary issues (hard news vs. soft news vs. infotainment, etc.) -- 7 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)
• Talk:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Week-old revert war over whether to include uncredited cast or to use only the official credits. July 5, 2005 07:42 (UTC)
• Talk:Out of This World (card trick)#Request for comment — regarding Out of This World (card trick) and related articles, should Wikipedia publish the secrets of magic tricks? 2005-07-04 18:24:33 (UTC)
• Talk:National Geographic Society, National Geographic Society: Is "yellow border" in the phrase "its characteristic yellow border" a proper noun that should be capitalized, or an adjective applied to a generic noun, which should not be capitalized? Is it appropriate to put an ® after a phrase that is not a registered trademark? --28 June 2005 19:30 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arcade games/Infobox, regarding the edit war of Template:Infobox Arcade Game and Pac-Man, taking place between myself (User:Poiuytman), and User:Mr.Do!. The main conflict is over the "Notes" field, which he feels should stay, while I feel it should go. The template has not gained widespread usage yet, so it needs to be resolved and finalized. Mr.Do! does not appear to be a native English speaker, so discussing the matter is difficult with him. I'm asking for more opinions on the matter, so a consensus can be reached. 12:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Mariah Carey. A handful of Carey fan editors have made the article and its (many) subarticles about Carey's songs, albums, and films very much violating both NPOV and factual accuracy. Request for help toning down verbiage, admin intervention with regards to individual users and overall decisions, and help reformatting articles to fit standards set by pre-existing similar articles. 23:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Phone sex (I suppose this is media!). Two anons (special:contributions/24.205.205.22 and special:contributions/68.56.232.25 (probably now user:Karlelvis)) are spewing out chunks of meaningless text onto the talk page and 68.56... is conducting 45 day survey of himself to determine what external links and language are appropriate in the article. 22:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Aesthetic Realism - Should the article state that its founder committed suicide, or use a euphemism? Is Aesthetic Realism known for its artistic reflections, or its claim to "change" people from homosexuality?
• Talk:Cool (song) and Talk:Since U Been Gone, two articles on songs. One editor wants sections headed "the song", another editor holds that this is unnecessary. 7 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
• Talk:Rob Liefeld - an anonymous user engaging in edit wars, whom two admins have not been able to reason with. Apparently Wikipedia is being tyrannical over this... 17:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists: The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and Michael Jackson sales are heavily incorrect, separate research published in the Talk page.
• Talk:Left Behind - A revert war is beginning between myself and a group of anonymous users who want a link to a blog. I feel this link is inappropriate and have been supported by a third party. I removed all op-ed links for fairness, but they put them back so they could have their blog link. Should I consider the link vandalism, or does the link have its place on the article? 01:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Maths, Science, Medicine

• Talk:Neurofeedback Does the E-meter, measuring Galvanic skin response, belong to Neurofeedback, and in extension, should Scientology doctrine be presented in the article? 17:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:William Connolley — one editor argues that we shouldn't refer to what the subject believes, as this is unencyclopædic. 09:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Cosmology - Should the basis of the big bang hypothesis (and the assumptions that it makes, and the religious (and therefore creationist) nature of its creators) be noted, or should that information be ommitted and the big bang hypothesis stated to be a proven truth? July 23, 2005
• Darwin's Black Box (Talk:Darwin's Black Box) - wording of the introduction. Several reverts now and disengagement, including a revert after apparently constructive discussion, and an explicit request not to revert. It doesn't seem like any progress will be made without further input. 14:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Maser (and also Talk:Laser) - Is the M in the acronym maser commonly accepted in the scientific community as standing for "molecular" instead of "microwave". -- 06:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Race and intelligence - Are critical views adequately covered and fairly represented in this article? 21:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Dextromethorphan - point of view dispute over drug abuse and recreational drug use
• category talk:eugenics is eugenics pseudoscience? Should eugenics be categorised as pseudoscience? See also previous discussions at talk:eugenics and category talk:pseudoscience 30 June 2005 22:26 (UTC)
• Talk:Aetherometry - This article appears to be on the way to surviving a VFD vote, but it needs improvement. Many (sometimes bitter) disagreements on the talk page between aetherometry supporters and detractors, including but not limited to: Did Einstein participate in an experiment that supported this theory? Should information critical of the practice of peer review be included? Should it be classified as pseudoscience or protoscience? More eyes needed.
• feces/talk:feces - after one vote on whether to include a photo of a large human stool that showed a small majority in favor of including the photo, there is a new survey over the size and location of the photo within the article. 28 June 2005 08:51 (UTC)
• Talk:William Shockley - Does Shockley's comment about his children's "regression" necessitate a note on a theory of the heritability of intelligence, or is a link to regression toward the mean sufficient?
• Talk:Thimerosal in relation to vaccination and autism.16:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Engineering, Technology

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Specifications survey - survey on how technical specifications should be presented in articles about aircraft? 09:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Nuclear power — there has been extensive editwarring over numerous items; NPOV eyes needed. July 1, 2005 20:19 (UTC) -- This topic is now in Protection. 4 July 2005 21:57 (UTC) -- Currently, the related Price-Anderson Act dispute is in Mediation. 18:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• Talk:Supercentenarian - Long simmering revert war over the use of tables versus lists to organize information in this article. See also similar dispute at Talk:National longevity recordholders, regarding inclusion and ordering of countries.
• Talk:Truth - Revert war about changes to introductory paragraph. Edits by anonymous user involve unnecessary archiving of very recent and relevant material and editing of the comments of other users; repeated reversion and referring to the comments of others as "obscurantist" and "vandalism" . See also talk:true 21:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Micronation - Should we include the phrase "was attended by representatives of Sealand, Elgaland-Vargaland, New Utopia, Atlantium, Frestonia and Fusa" in this article?
• Talk:Brainwashing - Revert war. A particular document known as the "Molko brief" is referenced; a compromise text was previously reached, indicating that the brief deemed certain research to be lacking in scientific validation, but did not deem the theory behind the research to be unscientific in nature or deem it to be disproven. Now one of the editors who reached that compromise text is insisting that because he has found a expert who incorrectly asserts that the brief deemed all research on such theories "not scientific" (an interpretation disproven by the brief itself suggesting alternate hypotheses based on the same theory that could yet be tested and would be consistent with the collected evidence) then the other side must provide an expert citation in order to point out that this is not what the brief says. Since when did Wikipedia require a negative to be proved, let alone proven via citation? 18:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Anti-gay slogan - NPOV issues, talk page partisanship 01:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:List of Irish-Americans - debate over criteria for inclusion. 17:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Wolverine (comics) - confusing debate about superpowers, a helping hand from a nerd in the know would be appreciated. 15:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Van Mildert College Nothing terribly dramatic - just a dispute about how relevant certain parochial details are to an encyclopedia. 12:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Virago - Slow editwar between someone trying to push an obscure racist theory and someone who thinks it has no place here, certainly not on that page. Spillover from German Wikipedia. 9 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)
• Scandinavian languages - Two editors want the article to be separate from North Germanic languages and claim that a single Scandinavian language exists and should have its own article, but do not provide proper references in violation of Wikipedia:Cite your sources. 9 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
• Talk:Speed_reading - clash between anti speed reading arguments and an editor with 26 years experience teaching it who asserts the article represents very strong POV. 5 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
• Homosexuality - The "Kinsey Reports" proclaim that 10% of people are homosexual, a study whose methodology is reguarded by certain people as highly flawed, although certain later studies have shown broad agreement. Should the article mention this study in the intro? -- 06:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sheep vote - Sheep vote is up for deletion. Please take a look at the article and vote on this, whichever way you choose to vote. 20:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Article title disputes

Most recent entries at the top. Please sign entries with the date only. (Use five tildes: ~~~~~)

• Talk:Rukario and Talk:Lucario - Which is this Pokémon's Romaji name? 13:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Missing sun motif and Talk:Missing Sun myth - debate regarding the upper case letters in the title and whether "myth" or "motif" is more appropriate. 2 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)

Wasn't this decided by vote? Should it be removed? 18:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the vote was over a copy+paste duplicate of the article, not where the original article should be located.10:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato - debate about whether or not to change naming standard en masse. Disambiguation and naming issues. Needs more voices.

Comment about individual users

This section is for discussing specific users who have allegedly violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In order to request comment about a user, please follow the instructions to create a subpage in the appropriate section below. Disputes over the writing of articles, including disputes over how best to follow the NPOV policy, belong in the Article content disputes section above.

Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people should have tried to resolve the same issue by discussing it with the subject on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. This must involve the same dispute or concern the same disputed type(s) of activity, not different ones.

Once the request for comment is open, these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page. Requests for comment which do not meet these minimum requirements after 48 hours from creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained.

Old discussions are kept in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive.

General user conduct

Discussions about user conduct should be listed in this section unless the complaint is specifically about the use of admin privileges or the choice of username. To list a user conduct dispute, please create a subpage using the following sample listing as a template (anything within {...} are notes):

• /Example user - Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~

The boilerplate for the dispute page itself is at /Example user.

Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold
List newer entries on top

Approved pages - have met the two person threshold
List newer entries on top

• /Famekeeper - Lack of civility, using article talk pages as soapbox to extent of interfering with their use
• /Cberlet & Willmcw - Lack of civility, disruption, POV pushing, personal attacks on other editors, disregard of WP policies, disregard of talk page and consensus-building efforts, bad faith edits and assumptions
• /Boothy443 - Disrupts Wikipedia to prove a point that "Admins are evil", and engages in frequent personal attacks, showing a general lack of conduct in the Wiki way. Hedley 14:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC) (RfA started 14:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)).
• /Gabrielsimon - revert wars, POV pushing, disregard of policies, accusations of abuse to other editors, undeterred by several blocks due to 3RR violations
• /Pastorrussell - Claiming ownership of article, POV pushing, 3RR violations in revert war over NPOV banner
• /Ultramarine - POV warrior, continual reverts and 3RR violations, refusal to work towards any kind of consensus, conflicts with multiple editors, is on a self-proclaimed crusade to purge wikipedia of what he considers improper views
• /SNIyer1 - POV pushing, constant removal of information, failure to respond or acknowledge requests for dispute resolution, use of sockpuppets, multiple 3RR violations
• /Germen - Edit warring on Islamophobia, POV pushing, inappropriate behaviour.
• /Classicjupiter2 Revert war on Surrealism, open contempt for consensus, POV pushing, personal attacks, false accusations of violating the three revert rule.
• /Nightscream - POV pushing, Revert-warring, Violation of 3RR, Lack of wikiquette, Not responding to constructive discussion, Ignoring comments.
• /DreamGuy-2 - personal attacks, invicility, blanking of attempts at resolution
• /Striver - POV pushing, severe sectarian bias, incivility
• /ARD and Jwalker - sock puppets, personal attacks, edit warring, lack of good faith
• /Alfrem - POV pushing, revert warring, sometimes resorts to personal attacks, refuses to cite sources or provide evidence
• /Flowerofchivalry - POV pushing, Revert-warring, Violation of 3RR, Lack of etiquette, Lack of wikiquette, Resorting to personal attacks, Abuse of (nonexistent) power, Not responding to constructive discussion, Ignoring comments and warnings, Utilizing anonymous IP addresses to further revert-war, Inability to procure evidence and support
• /Hogeye - edit warring, recreation of deleted pages, personal attacks
• /Nick Boulevard - POV, personal attacks, persistent copyright violation
• /68.170.0.238 - the "stop drinking soda" vandal, persistent POV edits, numerous warnings, vandalism
• /Mlorrey - dispute over NPOV and inclusion of POV, especially in regards to gun control issues
• /Trey Stone - sock puppets, 3RR violations, personal attacks, edit warring

Use of administrator privileges

This section is only for discussions specifically related to the use of sysop rights by Wikipedia:Administrators. This includes the actions of protecting or unprotecting pages, deleting or undeleting pages, and blocking or unblocking users. If the dispute is over an admin's actions as an editor, it should be listed under the General user conduct section above. To list a dispute, create a subpage using the following sample as a template:

• /Example admin - Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~

As with disputes over general user conduct, at least two people must certify that they believe there is a legitimate basis for the complaint. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted.

Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold

Approved pages - have met the two person threshold

List newer entries on top

Choice of username

If you believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Wikipedia's username policy, you may create a subpage here to discuss whether the user should be forced to change usernames. However, before listing the user here, please first contact the user on his or her talk page and give them an opportunity to change usernames voluntarily.

New listings here, please

• Anonymous (talk · contribs): there is in fact no such user, but it is used as a signature by some IP addresses.
• Category (talk · contribs): strange name, seems to imply officiality when in fact there isn't any
• أسامة بن محمد بن عود بن لادن (talk · contribs). If this is the real Osama bin Laden, WP will be subpoenaed for his IP soon :) otherwise, he should probably pick another username. dab (ᛏ) 09:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

He has already showed that he is not Bin Laden by posting unrelated images to an article written in Farsi, thinking it was Arabic.Heraclius 22:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• BobGeldof (talk · contribs) - Believed not to be Bob Geldof; all his edits have been vandalism. David | Talk 22:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Please report vandalism on WP:VIP, rather than here. Radiant_>|< 09:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not reporting his vandalism here, just his choice of username. David | Talk 13:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think the choice of username here is inappropriate. It is not an impersonation of another user, just a celebrity's name. This is somewhat commonplace. --Dmcdevit·t 06:41, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

User dispute archive

General convention and policy issues

More proposed conventions and policies can be found at Category:Wikipedia proposals.

List newer entries on top. Please sign entries with the date only. (Use five tildes: ~~~~~)

• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#July_19 Should some instances of CamelCase be removed? Example: FinlanD. This looks very amateurish when it comes up first in a search - in fact, looks like a typo. Suggestions? --06:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia_talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed Examples for A7 (non-notable_bios) is a discussion of proposed examples on how to apply the newyly expanded CSD. 04:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• WikiProject Echo is looking for participants to integrate information from other-language Wikipedias into the English one
• Wikipedia:Category titles is an attempt to form consensus on the naming of categorization by country (e.g. "Lawyers in China")
• Wikipedia:Summaries is a discussion of whether or not exhaustive plot summaries are encyclopedic. 09:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Template:TOCright is a discussion that attempts to fomualte guidelines on when a floating table of contents should be used. It is not a fight, but this is potentially an important issue and I think we might benefit for a wider range of opnion on this issue. DES 21:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Per-article blocking is a feature request to allow admins to block certain users from certain articles.
• Wikipedia:Template locations: Should certain templates go on an article's main page, or should they be only on Talk pages? 10:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Full names: should the lead section of biographies begin with the subjects' full names or should it just have the name as in the article title? 1 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Lyrics and poetry/Poll on inclusion of lyrics and poetry should copyright expired lyrics and poetry go on w:? 29 June 2005 21:01 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Naming conflict is a proposal to establish objective criteria and a dispute resolution panel to help manage and resolve persistent naming disputes. Discussion now at Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict.
• Wikipedia:Pro & con lists - Does this have enough support to be a guideline?
• Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks - the status of RPA is under debate; some people swear by it, others intensely dislike it. Please give your opinion on whether this should be policy, guideline, discouraged or forbidden.

Archived convention disputes