Wikipedia:Requests for comment

Part of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

The current process documented on this page does not reflect consensus. This is the result of a proposal, authored by only 3-4 people, that was not advertised widely. Multiple users have expressed problems with it (see the Talk page and the Village pump), but the author (User:Jguk) has not conceeded this point and has continued to replace this with his version. Please remove this message when this page has been returned to its previous documented procedure. It is recommended that no new disputes be added until this issue is resolved.

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 wiki-ists 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 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 RFC

• RFC is appropriate when you want other wiki-ists to visit the page, to allow a consensus or a better quality of decision, to help resolve a dispute or break a deadlock.
• If you simply want peer review of an article, then list it at Wikipedia:Peer review.
• 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.

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.
• Don't sign it, 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.

General hints for resolving disputes

• 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.
• 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.
• Don't forget to follow Wikiquette. Wikiquette is more important in resolving a dispute, not less.

Another option: Wikiquette alerts

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.

Article content disputes

Please only list links to talk pages where two or more participants cannot reach consensus and are thus stalling progress on the article. Discussions with no new comments in over two weeks old may have dried up, in which case please talk to the people involved to determine whether the problem was resolved.

Items listed on this page may be removed if you fail to try basic methods of dispute resolution.

List newer entries on top — do not sign entries.

• Germany Resumed revert war between one user and several others. Not much ongoing talk-page discussion of the content.
• Talk:Jubal Harshaw Question on fictional characters' quotations, Wikiquote, standard quotation practices
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Cumbey over the Javier Solana case. One user keeps reverting to inaccurate version of article, as in very inaccurate. [1] is Cumbey's version. [2] is SqueakBox's version.
• Talk:Revisionist Zionism dispute over the inclusion of factual information about the fascist sympathies of some early right wing Zionists.
• Talk:Vandalism (big surprise, no?) Stalled discussion wherein an editor on a number of "public password" accounts is pushing to have the article vandalized as an example of its subject matter. Sub-squabble over the status of "public password" accounts.
• Talk:Rastafarianism. Dispute over changing the name. Dispute is deadlocked.
• Talk:Javier Solana One user turned the article into evidences that Javier Solana is the Beast of Revelations; the Antichrist. Disputes edits that delete their thesis.
• Talk:Interval (music) What is the best presentation of similar intervals in different tuning or theoretical systems? By system or by interval? What is the proper way to title alternative presentations? For example, if Interval (music) contains a system by system break down, what would one name the article which contains a comparative listing?
• Talk:Weight training One user keeps reverting anothers changes.
• Talk:Melanin Re: article subhead on "Role in social and race bias." Back-and-forth/edit war over whether there should be passing reference to this matter or an abbreviated overview of the issue with mention of Wiki-linked examples of skin color bias in various societies -- as well as a brief mention of hair-color stereotyping (since the article also mentions melanin and hair color). For relevant discussion threads in Talk: portions of "Cleanin' it up" and "Reorganization: crappy, but maybe a start"
• Talk:Creation science Keep article or merge with Creationism? Debate deadlocked.
• Talk:Bible One user maintains "Christian Bible" is a pleonasm, while others contend that other religions have Bibles.
• Talk:Republic The argument is stalled and the page is protected. One user wants to put in an external link and the other refuses to allow external link. Need comment on stalled process and more input on external links.
• Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/user 220.233.86.223 Threats of legal action and the publishing of one user's complete home address, phone number and email address. One user appears to be threatening another. This is serious.
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#..of Taiwan → ..of the Republic of China: Subject of few very heated discussions.
• Alberto Fujimori: subject of edit warring, etc.; at least one contingent are claiming that only Peruvians may write on this topic; even spelling corrections are being reverted.
• Pedro Santana Lopes Two sets of editors (some dedicated only to this article) with opposing political views are pulling the article backwards and forwards, with no sign of willingness to compromise.
• Talk:Lists of English words of international origin Implementation of the consensus to excise the dictionaries, formed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of English words of Latin origin and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of English words of Greek origin, being unilaterally overturned both here and in all of the linked articles. And an argument that the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy does not apply to lists of words with their etymologies/translations.
• Talk:Sydney Hilton bombing Revert war involving a Wikipedia arbitrator(!) removing large well meant contribution without discussion.
• Talk:Adams motor#Request for comment Is it important to identify this as a claimed perpetual motion device in the opening paragraph? Is the description factually accurate? Is the terminology used, particularly the portions describing it as a "reluctance" motor, acceptable?
• Talk:Police brutality Should convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal be listed as a victim of police brutality?
• Talk:Myth Is C.S. Lewis a notable source on myths?
• Talk:Terri Schiavo POV dispute between a right-to-life activist and a few other editors. Some arguments over terminology, e.g. is Schiavo in a "vegetative state"? Is it NPOV to state that Michael Schiavo is "estranged"?
• Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat Can a very long article whose primary content is reported criticism of a particular person be considered to have a neutral point of view? This seems to be a general policy issue, not confined to this article. Exactly the same question can be asked about talk:Allegations against Sathya Sai Baba
• Talk:Cyber-terrorism Should the content of the article Internet terrorism, which was per VfD turned into a redirect to Cyber-terrorism, be added to that latter article (or any other) even though no vote of the VfD mentioned salvaging or merging any of the content?
• Talk:Keith Wigdor Extremely long-running two party revert war about description of article subject. Lack of any significant third party viewpoint. Extremely tendencious talk page that doesn't really address any of the issues with the article.
• Talk:Global warming revert war.
• Talk:Howard Dean - whether an external link to an article analyzing the campaign violates policy
• Talk:First Amendment to the United States Constitution editors do not agree on whether the text of the "virtual admendment" should be included in the main article.

Article dispute archive

Comment about individual users

Use this section to ask for outside opinions on how best to resolve a dispute you have with an individual user, rather than about article content. You should also state what your goal is with the RFC (for example, what you would like the other person or persons to do or stop doing).

To request comments, please follow the instructions to create a subpage in the appropriate section below. Before requesting comments from other Wikipedians here, you must first try to resolve your disagreement with the other person on a talk page.

Once the request for comment is open, other Wikipedians will hopefully come along with suggestions as to how to resolve the disagreement. This may include suggestions for how one or both parties should modify their behaviour.

Once the request for comment is open, it will remain open for the longer of 14 days or 3 days after the latest new contributor to the page has posted their comments, unless both the disputants request otherwise, for instance, because their dispute has been resolved before this time expires.

After that, it will be deleted. But users are free to keep a copy on their user page.

General user conduct

Discussions about how best to resolve a dispute with another user should be listed in this section unless the issue to be resolved concerns the use of admin privileges or the choice of username. To make a listing, please create a subpage using the following sample listing as a template (anything within {...} are notes):

• [[YOUR USER NAME]] requests outside comments on how to resolve their dispute with /Example user. The dispute concerns : {''one or two'' short sentences giving the dry facts)

Current pages

None at present

These pages were started before the current approach to RfCs was adopted

• /Calicocat - Allegations: personal attacks on other users, gratuitous incivility, disdain for community consensus and editing guidelines
• /LIGerasimova - Allegations: continuous personal attacks and insults towards other editors, making false accusations of POV editing, gratuous incivility, disruptive behaviour.
• /Messhermit - Allegations: POV warrior, breaches of wikiquette over Alberto Fujimori.
• /Instantnood - Allegations: POV Edits, won't follow concensus, edit wars, revert wars, global renames, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
• /Gazwim - Allegations: Vandalizing articles, seems to be conducting a campain completely unacceptable attacks against User:Norm.
• /138.130.194.229 - Allegations: POV pushing, not respecting community consensus.
• /Keetoowah - Allegations: personal attacks on other users, including with nationalistic chauvinism, general aggressive behavior.
• /62.52.37.xxx - Allegations: gratuitous incivility, accusing others of POV, disrespect toward other contributers.
• /Iasson - Allegations: Disruption of VfD and creation of articles to forward his own PoV on VfD policy.
• /Stude62 - Allegations: POV editing, disrespect toward other contributers, lack of civility, poor wikiquette, and engaging in chronic and sustained RV edit wars.
• /GerardM - vandalism and disruption of meta:End-user image suppression. Withdrawn due to it being a dispute of meta. May be moved to meta RfC if problem persists.

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:

• [[YOUR USER NAME]] requests outside comments on how to resolve their dispute concerning how /Example admin has exercised their sysop rights. The dispute concerns: {''one or two'' short sentences giving the dry facts.}

Current pages

None at present

These pages were started before the current approach to RfCs was adopted

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner

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, you must first contact the user on their talk page and give them an opportunity to change usernames voluntarily.

Current pages

• Adolf — it's a sockpuppet of one of the white supremacists still plaguing Wikipedia; it's made two edits, one to David Duke, the other to Anne Frank. Given the topics, the name is simply inflammatory as well as childish. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just noticed that he's making exactly the same edits as NSM-88, who was banned recently for making threats. (Needless to say, Sam Spade is defending his views on Talk:David Duke.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Just blocked him for 24 hours for a 3RR on David Duke, but an extended block/ban for other reasons may also be appropriate.-- Chris 73 Talk 12:52, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • "Adolf" itself is not an offensive username, so should not be listed here. If this user is, however, acting in an offensive anti-social manner, we have other procedures to deal with him, jguk 20:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Surely context matters? If he'd been making edits on articles about saxophones, I'd not have complained, but his only edits were Nazi or neo-Nazi oriented. In that context, 'Adolf' is calculated to offen — i.e., offensive. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User dispute archive

• NaziPartyUSA — self-explanatory, really. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

General convention and policy issues

Some proposed conventions and policies can be found at Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank.

List newer entries on top

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a new policy thinktank page. It seeks to provide guidance on how to tell whether or not a source is reliable and how to find better ones. It also boldly attempts to define "common knowledge" which is verifiable by consensus of Wikipedians, essentially treating editors as primary sources. Your comments and improvements would be appreciated. Feel free to remove this posting after 30 days. -- Beland 01:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus is a new page that has a number of discussions to establish consensus on whether certain groups of articles should or should not be included in Wikipedia. It was started because certain groups of similar articles (e.g. lesser-known characters from book X) were simultaneously nominated for deletion, and the existing pages about the matter were either unclear or outdated. Radiant! 09:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/proposed revision 1) proposes "BC" and "AD" (in contrast with "BCE" and "CE") as standard for Wikipedia, 2) apparently encourages linking of years, and 3) encourages linking of units of measurement, among other changes. It also reverses the style of many of the dates used within the guide (such as "February 12" to "12 February"). See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for discussion. Maurreen 01:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Edit summary. Edit summary is now required. How do we inform editors? See also Template talk:Edit summary. Hyacinth 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers) - Putting out feelers on a naming convention for subunits of governments around the world.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs/General/Naming of drug pages - The question is whether All drug pages should be named according to their International Nonproprietary Name
• Wikipedia:Ethics and law - I'd like to encourage ideas about possible guidelines or principles for questions of privacy and related issues.
• Wikipedia:Disabling edits by unregistered users and stricter registration requirement
  • Inactive. Problem turned out to be difficult to articulate. Peter O. (Talk) 19:20, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_terms should we use weasel words?
• Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion - Not sure if this is the place, but comments on this proposal to add another type of deletion would be appreciated.

Resolved convention disputes