Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Formeruser-81 (talk | contribs)
22,309 edits
Slrubenstein (talk | contribs)
30,655 edits
Line 58: Line 58:


:<!--***IMPORTANT***-->'''List newer entries on top''' &mdash; ''do not sign entries''.
:<!--***IMPORTANT***-->'''List newer entries on top''' &mdash; ''do not sign entries''.
*[[Talk:Jesus]] - whether using "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" (in the year of our Lord) is POV
*[[Talk:Thule Society]] - Whether and to what extent modern conspiracy theories shall be included.
*[[Talk:Thule Society]] - Whether and to what extent modern conspiracy theories shall be included.
*[[Talk:Palpatine]] - '''Star Wars fans:''' Should content from [[Darth Sidious]] be merged and redirected into this article, or the other way around.
*[[Talk:Palpatine]] - '''Star Wars fans:''' Should content from [[Darth Sidious]] be merged and redirected into this article, or the other way around.

Revision as of 19:10, 8 May 2005

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes

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.

Shortcut

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 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 wikipedians 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 title disputes

Most recent entries at the top -- do not sign entries

  • Talk:Antoine Carême -- title dispute involves most appropriate/used name and involves links to other articles.
  • Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory -- Appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" in an encyclopedic article's title generally. Is it NPOV? Are all "alternative theories" really "conspiracy theories"? Voting in progress. A more general discussion of the dispute can be found at Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory.
There is now an overall vote taking place here
Disputed titles include:

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.
  • Talk:Jesus - whether using "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" (in the year of our Lord) is POV
  • Talk:Thule Society - Whether and to what extent modern conspiracy theories shall be included.
  • Talk:Palpatine - Star Wars fans: Should content from Darth Sidious be merged and redirected into this article, or the other way around.
  • Talk:Schapelle Corby — Should article include external link to http://www.schapellecorby.com.au/ her Official Support Website?
  • Talk:California State Route 17 - In article titles, is consistency (with the official name and other articles) or the "common name" more important? --SPUI (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:William Pène du Bois A quoted passage from a work of fiction refers to balloons as having a "combined lifting pull of 600 pounds." In the context of this article, to assist non-U.S. readers, conversions are added in brackets. Should these conversions be given in kilograms or in newtons?
  • Talk:Suicide - Need further input about NPOV regarding suicide as a medical emergency vs. a choice.
  • Talk:Political correctness - Disagreement over fair and acurate way to describe Political correctness.
  • Talk:Christian right -- Disagreement over fair and acurate way to describe the Christian Right.
  • Talk:Appeal to belief - Editor insists that "Most scientists believe in evolution, so it must be true" is a common example of an "appeal to belief"
  • Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles - A page using an unorthodox statistical method to seek consensus about the use of "styles" in biographies (titles like "Her Majesty"). Multiple users have expressed a desire to junk the page (on grounds that the survey is confusing and the options offered vague or inappropriate) and instead use a more usual wikipedia approach to resolving the issue; others seem committed to carrying the survey though to a conclusion which will become policy.
  • Talk:May day - Dispute originally regarding a single sentence in the article has now degenerated into personal attacks and ideological sparring.
  • Talk:Vilna Gaon - whether it is appropriate to put footnotes in small print.
  • Talk:Pablo Neruda - ongoing dispute about the factual accuracy of claims made about Neruda and the NKVD/KGB
  • Talk:Timothy McVeigh — dispute over whether McVeigh is a terrorist or whether is is more NPOV to state that he was convicted of terrorism.
  • Talk:Scanian language#Anonymous revert - Scarcely motivated edits and reverts possibly depending of different understanding of the concept of dialects
  • Talk:Jim_Robinson — Was a recent VfD on this article conducted properly? Did the administrator who judged that VfD act properly? An editor has now posted a request at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#Jim Robinson to reconsider the VfD merge.
  • category talk:Eugenics. Is eugenics a pseudoscience? Does evolutionary biology support eugenics? Was Darwin a eugenicist?
  • Talk:Theistic realism - How should the article be written, should extensive quotations of the inventor of the term (Philip Johnson) be used, and how should criticism be handled? Ultimately, should the article be merged or deleted?
  • Talk:Israeli settlement Dispute over how to present different views on UNSC-resolutions.
  • Talk:Homosexuality - Multiple disputes over content and NPOV
  • Talk:Bisexuality Are the Kinsey statistics unacceptably inaccurate? Should they be removed from the article?
  • Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.: should the list of wives of Joseph Smith be removed from his article.
  • Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts: There is a discussion about how stub articles on radio masts (large antennas) should be handled. A merger of these stubs into a single table at List of masts is proposed.
  • Talk:Evacuation of East Prussia: Should the article begin by referring to its topic as "the Prussian Holocaust," and acting as though this is a commonly accepted term?
  • Talk:Metrication: Should the article contain a section on the ideology of metrication?
  • Talk:Interstate Highway - should km/h equivalents be to the nearest 1 or 5? --SPUI (talk) 13:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Chemtrail#NPOV tag Is the article intrinsically non-neutral, unless reduced to a mere definition? Does serious discussion of the belief system amount to advocacy for the truth of the belief?
  • Talk:Technological_singularity#Definition Comments needed on whether definition should be changed. I don't want to make a significant change without a consensus as Wiki is no place for orginal researech.
  • Talk:Battlestar Galactica (disambiguation) There's a revert war going on, on whether or not the ship Battlestar Galactica deserves to be disambiguated *in any way*, to point to its article page at all.
  • Talk:Anthony Flew. Fundies and the US press have taken his conversion from atheism to deism and ran with it, meanwhile atheists are denying he even exists. A right mess.
  • Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion - what exactly is "reposted content"?
  • Talk:Shemale and Talk:Hormone replacement therapy (trans) IP inserted highly questionable paragraphs, those were removed to the talk page and discussed. Discussion on both articles deteriorated into rabid rants and insults, with cross-references to the other debate. (Note: This RfC is more about the discussion style than particular content, so most people will be able to comment despite the rather specialised 2nd topic.)
  • Talk:Lancaster (disambiguation). Dispute over whether Lancaster should link to the British city, Pennsylvania city, California city, Ohio city, or the disambiguation page.
  • Talk:Bill_Clinton#Photos. Dispute over whether pictures of bodies from the Kosovo conflict shoudl be included.
  • Talk:Jeb Bush. Dispute over NPOV, copyrighted photographs. One user is accusing others of harrassment. Other methods of dispute resolution, including requesting comment from other editors and a listing at peer review, have already been attempted. [Intemperate accusation removed by Bishonen, please see "How to use RFC" above!]
  • Talk:Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism. This article has apparently been a chronic site of edit and revert wars. Current issues of dispute: to what extent should statements like "the NOI believes that Jews control the financial system" be presented as fact? Should extensive quotes from Khalid Abdul Muhammad be included? Are the Catholic League's charges relevant to an article on anti-Semitism?
  • talk:Guru - revert war between two editors, mainly about the structure of the article. Should the structure of the article based on "Eastern Perspective"/"Eastern Context" and "Western Context and secular views" or on "gurus in the West and their American and "European followers" and "Assesments of guru's authenticity and criticism"? And also a dispute about one editor alleged disregard for consensus. One editor accuses the other of advocating an anti-guru POV and in return, after this RfC was posted, the other acsuses the other to using the article to minimize the documented problems of assessing the gurus's authenticity and the documented alleged extensive criticism.
  • Talk:Theistic realism - dispute between User:Ungtss and User:Joshuaschroeder over NPOV, attribution, and whether edits are in bad faith.
  • Talk:Journalistic standards and ethics - There is an increasingly heated debate over whether the terms "standards" and/or "ethics" should be in the title, and whether or not the article is about one, the other, or both.
  • Talk:Pederasty#Pederastic_advertising - Should the Budweiser ad featuring the abduction of Ganymede, from 1903, be included as an illustration?
  • Talk:Sex_in_advertising#Budweiser_ad. The dispute is over the following link and description. The ad was run was c. 1903-5. Early use of a homoerotic symbol in advertising: Budweiser beer ad based on Zeus' abduction of Ganymede
  • Talk:Battlestar Galactica (ship) – We are having a disagreement on the existence of an article on the ship Battlestar Galactica. As it is a redirect, people might not think to start an article there.
  • Talk:Harper's_Magazine - Does the text constitute a copyvio that requires the article to listed as such, or can a rewrite fix it, due to significant added material?
  • Talk:Centre Party (Germany) - dispute between User:John Kenney and User:Flamekeeper over Flamekeeper's additions to the article, which seem designed to provide material to support the idea of the existence of a Vatican conspiracy to bring the Nazis to power.
  • Drug abuse, Substance abuse, Harm reduction, and, bizarrely, Francis Ford Coppola. Hinges on the definition and appropriate use of the terms subtance abuse, drug abuse and drug use.
  • Wikipedia:Poképrosal - should Pokemon stubs be merged into comprehensive lists?
  • Talk:David Dreier Dispute over one user's removal of the entire section about Campaign 2004 - i.e., the issues in the campaign of this U.S. representative and the vote total he received in the election of 2004.
  • Talk:David Bret - article primarily casting aspersions on the show business biographer, David Bret
  • Talk:Teach the Controversy A vote on merging this article with Discovery Institute.
  • Swedish phonology: Disputes over basic issues of phonetics as well as matters specific to Swedish: Should the terminology used in current phonologies of Swedish in print be favored or should the wikiarticle use nonstandard terminology and IPA characters?
  • Opus Dei more than 600 edits since March have turned that article into a publication of Opus Dei, or so it seems. Not even remotely NPOV any more, compare version before those IPs started to edit: [1]. Diff from that: [2] Various complaints on the talk page, too.
  • Talk:Russell Tribunal Should contemporary views and/or possible criticism of the Tribunal, including some from a Russian author, be permitted within the article?
  • Talk:Henry Kissinger Should the discussion of war crimes accusations be greatly condensed, and mention removed from the lead paragraph?
  • talk:Jim Ogston; it seems the chap himself has turned up, and he is not very happy (or very notable, but the vfd trolls didn't bite before...
  • Talk:Thimerosal Should the Thimerosol article contain or exclude detailed discussion of the suspected connection between autism and vaccination? There's been an edit war going on here for many days.
  • Talk: Zanskar User is making strange and sarcastic comments, and preventing me to change the article for the better with my version, which was an adaptation of the original content after I have done a massive rework (mainly cleanup and adding the Tourism section). I can't understand why they want to restrict information.
  • Talk: Bell's theorem A defender of the accepted pov is arbitrarily deleting all contributions by another member, on the grounds that she supports a minority pov. Many of her edits are, however, of a neutral character and are clearly necessary, since (among other problems) the present page presents a supposed derivation of one of the Bell inequalities that bears no relation to Bell's reasoning and is not valid.
  • Talk:Charles University of Prague How the founder of the university should be named in the article? Charles IV or Charles I?
  • Talk:Citizens Commission on Human Rights Is the fact that one website claims there is "no proof of [mental illness] actually existing" all that is needed to state this as factual?
  • Talk:Jim RobinsonDiscussion as to whether a website owner known only for his site deserves his own page, including a hardban threat if a certain person were to edit the Free Republic page after once trying to merge the two articles, allegations of unilateralism, and the lot.
  • Talk:Western betrayal. Discussion as to whether or not this title is NPOV and appropriate, as well as whether or not the article itself is inherently POV.
  • Category talk:New York state highways There seems to be some strong feeling that numbered highways must follow the three digit rule when being categorized. Thus Highway 25A must be listed under "0" as though it were really highway 025A. Categorizing the entry Highway 25A under "2" results in an immediate (or pretty fast) rv. Also, please look at Category: State highways for examples from other States, some one way and some the other. Looks like we should have (yet another) policy to avoid future conflicts.
  • Talk:Elamite_Empire ongoing edit war over alleged ethnic origins, the old persian name of elam and its modern reflex, and other sundry points. lack of sources a problem.
  • Talk:400-Series Highway woot, another edit war on whether to include miles
  • Talk:TIME: Dispute over the rendering of the magazine's name: all caps vs. standard capitalization rules. This spills over into Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks).
  • Talk:List of automotive superlatives: dispute over the inclusion of automobiles which are not type-approved as road legal, but which can be made road legal through, for example, the British Single Vehicle Approval process.
  • Talk:Yale University and Talk:Ivy League: dispute over unattributed inclusion of the phrase "one of the most prestigious universities in the world" in the Yale article and not in any of the other ivies' articles.
  • Talk:Anti-Defamation League: dispute over inclusion/exclusion of links to certain sources
  • Talk:Golliwogg: dispute about if the term is the root of the term wog. The level of offensiveness and regularity of usage of wog and golliwog has also seen debate. (Note that this summary is neither neutral nor accurate, but the editor in question keeps changing it.) Note: a dispute tag was first placed on the article on 06:39, 11 Apr 2005. The dispute tag was last removed from the article, by a different editor, on 05:45, 12 Apr 2005. The editor who placed the tag has since made five edits to the talk page since that time, including one compliment on an edit. It has not been explicitly stated that the dispute is over.
  • Talk:List of occultists: should Jesus, Solomon, and the Three Wise Men be listed as occultists? Reasons for including them have been mooted in talk; one user and a number of anons insist on reverting w/o discussion on talk. Moreover, this request was deleted by an anon.
  • Talk:Anarchism - Calm dispute resolution (or blocking of the talk page) might be called for here. A few users are posting constant messages, one every few minutes in some cases, in what is clearly not a helpful attempt at reasoned discourse. It would seem that the situation has gotten out of hand in an article which has long been tumultuous.
  • Talk:Arabs and anti-Semitism - Seems to have quieted down, but had been a long-running dispute, for reasons including those listed by one user in discussion on talk page.
  • Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/China or PRC vs. mainland China: A vote on a very comprehensive change in the naming conventions of individual categories on the subject of China/mainland China. The vote has been initiated by a single user despite objections and previous discussion
  • Talk:Fatah: should the group's graphic logo be described or not. Hamas also has a history of similar text blanking under their logo.
  • Talk:Black_supremacy / Black_supremacy: Dispute over the inclusion of Black Supremacist organizations
  • Image talk:Can passport1.jpg: Who owns the copyright to a passport image?
  • Talk:Papal conclave, 2005:Should the number of countries that cardinals come from be given exactly?
  • Talk:Anarchism - This page has been in a state of turmoil almost continuously since before I became a Wikipedian (which was in January of last year). It needs as much attention as it can get from disinterested Wikipedians. Current dispute centers on how best to disambiguate diffrent uses of the word "anarchism".
  • Talk:List of internet service providers who offer connection to the mbone and Talk:List of internet service providers who offer native IPv6 - These two articles were created by an anonymous IP as nearly-useless stubs, with a one-line description and a list consisting of exactly zero providers. They were signed for speedy deletion twice (by different users), and both times the creator removed the notice. Eventually they were deleted, but the creator recreated them, again as nearly-useless stubs. What should be done here?
  • Talk:Arabs and anti-Semitism - Can anything be done to improve the point-of-view of this article or its factual accuracy? It has been in dispute for more than a year! This page has just been kept after a vfd. Any suggestions would be most welcomed.
  • Talk:The Matrix - to resolve a dispute over deletion of content and whether it is justified, and whether participants have argued in good faith.
  • Talk:GreenFacts - to resolve a dispute between an individual and an organization, regarding an article on that organization.
  • Talk:List of academic disciplines - Is behavioral science one of the broadest categories of academic inquiry, along with natural science, social science, and humanities?
  • Talk:Origin of language - Dispute over the placing of a pseudoscientific account on the origin of language. Opinions would be appreciated. Thanks.
  • Talk:Immigration to Israel from Arab lands - Concerns for neutrality and unreferenced disputed facts. Please review, help out.
  • Talk:Golan Heights - Based on Wikipedia:Categorization rule "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.", debate over which Geography categories the Golan Heights should be placed in.
  • Talk:Bahá'u'lláh and Talk:Bahá'u'lláh's family - There is a dispute regarding the positioning of the photograph of Bahá'u'lláh. A sub-page for opinions was added at Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo
  • Talk:Main page - This article is constantly undergoing massive, rapid change. Some help in settling things down would be appreciated.
  • Talk:Circumcision and Anti-semitism - As a formality, I hereby request comment on the controversial issue of the page being blanked or deleted including credible external sources and internal links to other articles.
  • Talk:Homosexuality and transgender - there is a dispute concerning the relevancy and validity of classifying intersexual people which is defined as scientific term to be transgender when gender identity refers to a socially constructed classification outside of science. See Talk:Homosexuality for the ongoing dialogue.
  • Talk:Modern geocentrism#Does this article belong in the creationist category? - should Modern geocentrism be placed under the category of creationism?
  • Talk:Homosexuality - there is a dispute as to whether the common definition refers to same sex or same gender; with gender having being undisputed and agreed upon for quite a while now. See Talk:Homosexuality#Definition dispute. Similar diputes with the definition can be found on Hijra (India) and Homosexuality and transgender. To give an example - it is to as whether the defintion should include the scientific meaning of sex without the socially constructed meaning of gender as in Merriam Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary along with its implications on the article's topic.
  • Talk:Armenian Genocide - Talk:Armenian Genocide requires dispute resolution. I am having difficulty starting a discussion.
  • Talk:America's Army - Dispute about article content has resulted in heated arguments, edit wars and contested spinoff articles like America's Army controversy and America's Army Series
  • Talk:Israel Shahak Dispute about whether or not the Liberal Democrats (UK), a social liberal political party based in the United Kingdom, should be characterized a group "who condemn racism and express support for Israel".
  • Talk:Country music Dispute regarding criticism.
  • Talk:Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks Dispute about how articles relating to this topic should be titled, and what their contents should be.
  • Talk:Panama Choice of map - Should professional-looking but informationally-sparse CIA maps be replaced with informationally-dense but unprofessional-looking user-made maps? (Multi-page dispute - also covers Trinidad and Tobago, Geography of Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina, Guyana, Denmark, Colombia, Namibia, Nigeria, Ecuador, Geography of Ecuador, Hungary, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Venezuela, Bolivia, Paraguay, Zambia, etc.
  • Talk:Gene Ray and Talk:Time Cube - revert wars and NPOV problems over the question of the scientific merits of Mr. Ray's ideas, much discussion but no resolution in sight
  • Talk:mind control Dispute whether the quotes by Evangelical Christian writers Bob and Gretchen Passantino are notable enough to deserve to have a complete section to their POV or should their POV mentioned succintly that "not all counter cult activists like Bob and Gretchen Passantino believe in mind control". See also Talk:Cult#Benjamin_Zablocki_notable.3F
  • Talk:Mizrahi Jew One user feels recent insertions should be sourced, other feels that recent insertions need to be disproved to be removed.
  • Talk:Talk radio One user has tagged a section of the as article disputed and an NPOV "puff piece," another user doesn't see the problem.
  • Talk:Trusted computing - Should an unreferenced anti-TC opinion piece be included as the bulk of this article? Do statements like "TC has placed at risk the priceless inheritance that Gutenberg left us" belong in an encyclopedia article?
  • Talk:Canadian Alliance of Student Associations - Eternal NPOV tag
  • Talk:Canadian Federation of Students - Eternal NPOV tag
  • Talk:Common Era - whether the website religioustolerance.org is authoritative enough for the article to link to.
  • Talk:Argentina - Choice of map
  • Talk:Trinidad and Tobago - Choice of map.
  • Talk:Stepanakert. Should the title of the article about this city be Stepanakert or Khankendi?
  • Talk:List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party. What should the format and introduction of the article be? Should people whose links to the Democrats are unexplained be removed until explanation and/or verification is given? See 2 different versions in page history, and comments on its VfD. Note both versions are works in progress.
  • Talk:The Netherlands. Is the name of the country Netherlands or The Netherlands, and should it therefore be moved to Netherlands or left at the Netherlands?
  • Talk:Ford GT90. There is a disagreement between editors about (1) whether metric units should be in the article and (2) aspects of copy.
  • Computer ethics. Two users persist in addding copyrighted material to the article, without explanation or response to a request on the Talk page for copyright permission.
  • Talk:New York City. A revert war over trimming and moving content from the article. Summary on talk page.
  • Talk:Herbert Garrison (for now) There is a debate whether the article about a South Park character should be at Mr. Garrison or Mrs. Garrison; as a "compromise" it was moved to Herbert Garrison, but that does not solve the problem.
  • Talk:Sydney Hilton bombing There is evidence that the bomb was planted by Australian Security forces. Dispute is whether just enumerating this undisputed evidence makes the article POV. Has been a revert war. Summary on Talk page.
  • Niger Innis: Is it appropriate to illustrate this article with a photograph of the incident where CNN misspelled his name on-screen as "Nigger Innis"?
  • Talk:L. Ron Hubbard#revert of 3/20 - Dispute on whether L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology, based his methodology "on the scientific method and an optimized research algorithm" and "recent discoveries in the field of Quantum mechanics have begun to vindicate a great deal of his work." — 3RR violated, 18 reverts in total and counting... Update: 23 reverts in 15 hours, more parts of the article are starting to change. Update: the article was protected, then unprotected, and the intro paragraph gets edited by anon users on a regular basis again, against the consensus on the talk page, reverted by other anon users, then changed again... See the history: [3]
  • Talk:Human - Dispute about finding an appropriate introduction to Human between those who want a more scientific introduction and those who want a stronger spiritual or religious component. Several compromise intros have been suggested, none acceptable so far. See here for the versions: Talk:Human/draft. Discussion taking place here [4].
  • Wikipedia talk:Google test#POV tool - Dispute over whether the list of examples of where the Google test is invalid is POV. GRider has refused to compromise on his talk page. 18:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Dragostea Din Tei - Another editor, who consulted "some people in the chat room", reverted a rewrite of mine, which I feel improved the article in many various fundamental ways. I would appreciate a wider opinion of the two versions. 00:21, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Israeli settlement#The Sasson Report. There is a disagreement about the length of the section entitled The Sasson Report. Please read the related Talk discussion and give us your input on whether the section is too long, adequate, or a candidate for a seperate article. Thank you.
  • Talk:Book of Esther - This text needs to be differentiated from the possibly historical figure Esther. The additions to the text need to be discussed. The interpretations of Esther as a didactic fiction as well as a literalist historical document need to be neutrally assessed. There is a Rabbinic tradition that is untouched. I have done what I can. your help is needed.
  • Talk:Ann Coulter - Dispute as to whether Ann Coulter's statement in which she insisted that "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" can be reasonably interpreted as "10,000 former Canadian troops and Canadian citizens crossed the border and joined the United States army to fight in Vietnam." And various related disputes on wording of the article.
  • Talk:MPC (audio compression format) - anonymous user is removing information from the article and accusing people of "trolling" and "propaganda".
  • Nazarene - Two IP editors feel that a section discussing the "Nazarene Judaism" movement of Clint Van Nest is inaccurate, and have been attempting to replace it with a different version. A number of other editors feel that the replaced version violates a number of Wikipedia policies, and insist that the proposed changes need to be discussed and agreed to in Talk: first.
    • (Alternative view) Various IP editors feel that the original version of a section about modern Nazarenes is unsourced slander concucted mainly by User:Jayig and have been attempting to promote enlightened discussion on a fully sourced new version of that section to encourage editing.Specific criticisms have been addressed, but a revet possy all of whom have claimed connections in various places on wiki to the same religious group are doing everything they can to prevent progress.
  • Talk:List of countries that only border one other country, Talk:List of subnational entities and Talk:List of roads and highways - on whether non-sovereign States (i.e. dependent territories) are qualified to be listed.
  • Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#..of China or ..of the PRC .26rarr.3B ..of mainland China - on proper titling based on the scope of the content of articles/categories.
  • Capitalism - After a very long process some time ago, consensus was reached concerning the introduction to this article (the main problem is that there are many definitions of capitalism). RJII is constantly deleting content, which other editors must restor, and occasionally adds a new "definition of capitalism" which is either unnecessarily redundant (its elements are already in the introduction) or inappropriate. As one will learn from the talk page (and archived talk pages), RJII has been asked repeatedly to provide a source for his/her definition. To this date s/he has refused to provide any sources. Although virtually all of the editors who have been working on this article have had some sharp disagreement, all have ultimately been able to reach some compromise -- except RJII. Two editors have taken on the burden of reverting RJII's unilateral edits. Not one single editor has supported RJII's major changes. See refusal to have a serious discussion over content, see an example of a blanket personal insult]
Much of this is lies ..particularly about providing sources. But, apparently somebody is upset that they they got the intro of the article just like the wanted it after a lot of work, then someone like me comes along and points out that it's horrible. But, just because it took a lot of effort to get an article any particular way doesn't mean that it's a good article. Sometimes it takes someone such as me that wasn't involved in the process of appeasing each other to take an objective look and point out that an article is bad. I'm sorry, buddy, but I have just as much right to change and article as you have to guard the status quo.

Article dispute archive

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.

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; do not sign entry.}

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

  • /Plattopus - Made statements about Daniel C. Boyer he admitted were factually false, but refuses to apologise for or retract them. When asked to do so said he would not respond under any circumstances.

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

  • /Johan Magnus, Ruhrjung, Tuomas - One user alleges being constantly reverted by three experienced users who display incivility and territorial behavior about articles that have "stood the test of time". This includes asserting personal opinions over academic sources.
  • /Mr Tan — user who has for some weeks been disrupting editing of a number of articles and making personal attacks on other editors
  • /Haham hanuka - vandal who has been banned on Hebrew Wikipedia, and is now trying to subvert the English Wikipedia. (most notable is the search engine fraud currently being committed on his user page)
  • /Xiong - ongoing disruptive behaviour, often in direct violation of Wikipedia policy.
  • /LevelCheck - User is repeatedly editing Wikipedia in non-neutral or disruptive ways, often in direct contravention of policy; user nevertheless displays a firm grasp of relevant policies when it is in their interest to do so.
  • /TDC - Repeated 3RR violations, edit warring, ignoring NPOV process, lack of civility
  • /Islamist - inserting pro-Arab POV and personal attacks against users.
  • /SamuraiClinton – Idiosyncratic and disruptive edits, articles, templates, and categories; attempts at circumventing the VfD process
  • /Denelson83 - Gratuitous incivility, aggressive bad-faith responses to questions about copyvios
  • /NCdave - disrupting the NPOV process on Terri Schiavo by relentlessly shoehorning his POV into talk pages and proclaiming the article is not POV, despite consensus.
  • /Wareware - cyber stalking from article to article dealing w/African Americans; hostility and abuse; automatic reverts of user contributions; racism - repeated use over time of racial slurs and racially charged words like "ape," "monkey," "jungle," "savage," and "big, black momma" in exchanges with African-American user; profanity.
  • /67.86.174.158 - Allegations: Repeatedly adding a remark about Jews being responsible for the death of Jesus to Pontius Pilate; vandalism of articles and user pages.
  • /The Number - Uses account only to harass users who have edited the Sollog article and its talk page, refer to The Number's contribution history.
  • /Michaelm - Allegations: Editing politicians' articles, particularly Canadian politicans, to describe them as "social democrats" without consensus. Avoiding discussion in a dispute regarding a list of social democrats appearing on the social democracy article.

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; do not sign entry.}

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
List newer entries on top

  • /Danny - inappropriate use of speedy deletion

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

User dispute archive

General convention and policy issues

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

List newer entries on top

Resolved convention disputes

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment&oldid=13441201"