Wikipedia:Requests for comment

[[:|WP:RFC]]

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, disputes sometimes arise that could be resolved with additional input from a larger segment of the community.

To request comment on a dispute, link to the page where the discussion should take place. Please add a brief, neutral statement of the issue involved. Don't list arguments for or against any position, or try to assign blame for the dispute. Don't sign entries, just link to the appropriate page. On the article's talk page, please summarize the dispute.

Place the link in the appropriate section below. Disputes over article content should link to the talk page for the article in question. (If you simply want peer review of an article, then list it at Wikipedia:Peer review instead.) 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.

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, please wait until at least two people have contacted the user on his or her talk page (or the talk pages involved in the dispute) and failed to resolve the problem. Don't forget to follow Wikiquette. Items listed on this page may be removed if you fail to try basic methods of dispute resolution.

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. If a discussion lasts over two weeks without new messages and it appears not to be resolved, please talk to the people involved to determine whether the problem was resolved.

List newer entries on top — do not sign entries.

Talk:Empire of Atlantium has had an edit war and two protections over a very minor change in wording. Please vote here for the wording you prefer, so we can resolve this edit war once and for all.
Talk:Historicity of Jesus complete mess, under control by new user who claims he'll "be done in a week"
Talk:Feng Shui Needs a lot of work I think on making it a bit less "rah, rah" and providing scientific viewpoint of Feng Shui being pseudoscientific.
Talk:Australian Labor Party Was King O'Malley a significant intellectual influence in the early ALP? If so, does this represent an influence of American System economic ideas?
Talk:Pursuit of Nazi collaborators Inherently POV page title? Debate over moving / merging page needs more involvement, article also NPOV disputed.
Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus Dispute over NPOV style and unexplained reverts
Talk:United Nations Children's Fund This short article seems to be being used to pursue an argument about another issue, leading to an imbalance. Any attempt to remove the relevant content is reverted. Discussion not making progress.
Talk:Collectivism Failure to agree on facts, presentation.
Talk:Organised persecution of ethnic Germans - question if "just" and "unjust" prosecution/persecuiton should be described in one article or two articles
Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision - POV dispute over introduction
Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation - revert wars claiming unspecified POVs, resulting in page protections
Talk:France severe POV problems, vandalism
Talk:History of the United States (1865-1918) severe POV problems and multiple editors who revert to their preferred version
Talk:Circumcision — POV argument over "anti-circumcision agenda"
Talk:Jew Watch - is it NPOV to describe the website as "anti-Semitic" and "controversial". Should the website be described as having been "censored"?
Talk:Reformed Egyptian - The Book of Mormon says it is an ancient book that was written with reformed Egyptian characters, which only Mormons believe. How can we best characterize this in the article? Is it fair to say there is no non-Mormon evidence of such writing's existence? Is it fair to suppress that fact?
Talk:Foreskin fetish - dispute over including the term "skin freaks"
Talk:Translation - discussion regarding the appropriateness of external links. See also Talk:Favicon.
Talk:Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - on the existence of the confidential protocol, and on credibility of Soviet propaganda in general.
Talk:Saint Peter, Talk:Saint Joseph, Talk:Saint Andrew- Who did decide that Saint~ is the most common name? Please advise.
Talk:Atheism - Basic disagreement over whether atheism is a passive or an active stance as well as whether one must be either atheist or theist by definition.
Talk:Finnic#Edit_war - ?
Talk:International_Humanitarian_Law - Disagreement over the differences between Laws of War and International Humanitarian Law. "Basic Rules of IHL" also disputed.
Talk:History_of_Turkey - cannot agree on Armenian Genocide inclusion/wording
Talk:Masturbation - should this article repeatedly mention the obscure purported traumatic masturbatory syndrome, which scraped through VfD, and whose article is mainly an explanation of how obscure the references to it are?
Talk:Monique Vinh Thuy - revert war between anon and User:Jimmyvanthach.
Talk:Chen Duxiu - Group of users, namely User talk:0101CHANhk. 0101, continuously changing the page to what they feel belongs there, namely linking non-english articles and putting back anything cut out. Its difficult because they DO want to contribute legitimately but have seriously messed up the talk page and the article itself at times.
Talk:Regime_change_in_Iraq - NPOV dispute over whether it's an "occupation" or a "regime change," and the opinions these wordings represent.
Talk:InuYasha#Viz names - Should InuYasha use the more common but-not-technically-correct "Tetsusaiga" or the technically-correct-but-less-common "Tesseiga"?
Talk:List of Communist Parties - should the Spartacist League be listed?
Talk:Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Article_protected - Please come and help lift protection imposed after an edit war.
- Talk:Project for the New American Century - Accuracy and POV between two versions, see this diff: [1]
Talk:Cross-dressing Quite a little edit war going on on the inclusion of Joan of Arc and whether including her into this article implies anything "indeecent" about her.
Talk:Genocides in history how can allegations regarding Israel and Palestine be included NPOV and relevant to genocide? Are allegations of acts of anti-Semitism topical as "incitement to genocide" if the acts are not themselves genocide?
- Why was his text removed of the main genocide article ? Are they genocides outside history ? As result of this move there is no reference to the Holocaust in the main Genocide article.
Talk:People's Republic of China heavy dispute over Deng Xiaoping's economic policies and whether they brought a higher standard of living to China
Talk:Shipston-on-Stour and User talk:G-Man is this in Warwickshire or Worcestershire? It is in both, according to policy.
Talk:Surrealism - various content disputes. Please vote in the poll regarding the inclusion of Keith Wigdor's recent manifesto.
Talk:Communist state - a heavy editwar regarding deaths caused by communist rule. See the "Death toll" section in the discussion page.
Talk:List of transgendered people, the entry about Hayley Cropper under fictional individuals has seen several reverts in the last couple of days.
Talk:Exxon Mobil - Should verified, factually correct information be deleted from this article, when that information is insignficent and makes the article unneutral by lack of counter-point
Talk:Khmer Rouge - NPOV dispute regarding U.S. involvement/support and number killed - This worse than this goes as far as denying that there was agenocide.
Talk:Sexual intercourse - NPOV dispute over circumcision, also referencing in-depth article vs discussion of same

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.

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.}

Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. 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

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

/Cheung1303 Allegations: Persistent uploading of images that violate copyrights, failure to provide source information for images, attempts to defeat process for removal of images

/Pumpie - Allegations: Insists on cutting and pasting bizarre little substubs from goodness-knows-where regarding geographical coordinates of individual municipalities in the Sao Paulo, Brazil area. Refuses to answer polite inquiries and seemingly refuses to do anything to these "articles" beyond their initial creation.

/IZAK Allegations: Accusing several users of anti-Semitism, spamming personal attacks on user talk pages

/Alberuni Allegations: Personal attacks, incivility, and false accusations.

/Chuck F Allegations: Revert wars, changing other users' comments on VfD, 3 revert rule, removing factual information from articles.

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

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:Policy thinktank.

List newer entries on top

Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_terms should we use weasel words?
Wikipedia talk:Protection policy - Should we implement a software change so that pages in the user namespace are only editable by that particular user?
Wikipedia:Image_Maps - Can/Should wikipedia support image maps?
Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion - Not sure if this is the place, but comments on this proposal to add another type of deletion would be appreciated.
Wikipedia talk:Cleanup/Leftovers#Leftovers_system - Not a dispute, but I would like more opinions from people in a discussion on a somewhat backwater talk page.
User_talk:Rednblu#Good_Faith_policy_(adjourned): Dispute about whether good faith policy would allow a theist to operate an atheistic Wikipedia personality.
Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases: content created by User:132.205.15.42, as a jump-start to a discussion (this goes hand in hand with a rewrite of the content of the {{cfd}} template).
Proposed new VfD rule: No repeat submission of articles that have already passed the VfD process (w/ consensus to keep) within the next three months.
Wikipedia:Categorization of people - 2nd version of integrated content.
Wikipedia talk:Category schemes - Non-Wikipedia categorization systems
Wikipedia:Importance - what subjects are suitable for Wikipedia? This proposed policy clarifies existing policies such as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Check your fiction. Integrates Wikipedia:Trivia (see below) - see also wikipedia talk:importance.
Template talk:Move to Wiktionary - Formatting of the "move to" templates. See Template:Move to Wiktionary, Template:Move to Wikiquote, Template:Move to Wikibooks
Wikipedia_talk:Series_templates - This is a proposed policy on series boxes in the Template namespace. Please add comments about which format is suitable for these boxes, to gain some form of consensus, and make the policy enforceable.

Resolved convention disputes