Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DropDeadGorgias (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 13 April 2005 (→Choice of username: my uh... unbiased opinion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Part of Wikipedia:Resolving 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.

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 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.
  • 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 - are the CIA maps "house standards", or can they be replaced with custom maps. Also question of whether JPG's are suitable for 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:Rikssvenska, Talk:Swedish language, Talk:Swedish phonology, Talk:Voiceless dorso-palatal velar fricative, and most probably soon in more related articles, souring relations between contributors with conflicting attitudes
  • 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.
  • Talk:List of purported cults. There is a disagreement between editors about which sources can be used as a basis for that inclusion of groups on the list, and about how those references must be worded in order for the groups to qualify.
  • 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: [1]
  • 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 [2].
  • 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.
  • Talk:Fear Factor - Dispute on whether it is in reality a game show or reality game show.
  • Black supremacy - Dispute over obvious POV and factual issues such as definition, history, influence and so forth. The article before my edit looks like a long afrocenrist rant, and is likely to be reverted to that version quickly.
  • Diamond - Dispute over use of BCE/CE versus BC/AD dating convention; discussion regarding issue is wholly contained at User talk:Gene Nygaard#BC / BCE dating convention.
  • Talk:Cool (aesthetic) Disagreement on "Cool (aesthetic)" about excessively verbose intro.
  • LUElinks/Luelinks is a private website whose members insist on creating vanity articles under one or both names. Often reverted as a redirect to GameFAQs from where they spun off.
  • Science & Environmental Policy Project - Can some unaffiliated outsiders with a good sense for Wikipedia standards please comment on, or help resolve, this prolonged edit war.
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment ratification vote - Did this vote pass? Is Jimbo Wales' assent enough to implement the amendment even though a quorum was not met?
  • Talk:Germany Resumed revert war between one user and several others. How to proceed from here? 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. [3] is Cumbey's version. [4] 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: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:Global warming revert war.
  • Talk:Howard Dean - whether an external link to an article analyzing the campaign violates policy


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

  • /RexJudicata - sockpuppet alleging cyberstalking, threatening legal proceddings, possibly uploading copyright image, false vandalism claims, etc, see Abortion etc.
  • /Kappa - Bizarre votes on VfD. Often seems to cite nonexistent VfD precedent.

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

  • /Che y Marijuana - Avowed left-anarchist skewing Anarchism, Individualist anarchism, Anarcho-capitalism, Template:Anarchism, etc. to his POV.
  • /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.
  • /B1link82 - Repeated uncivil edit summaries, 3RR violations, Edit warring, Copyvio.
  • /Martin2000 - edit warring, continous lack of civility, recurrent personal abuse, possible abuse of open proxies while blocked
  • /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.
  • /Irate - personal attacks, violation and disregard for Wikipedia policy.
  • /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.
  • /Instantnood - Allegations: POV Edits, won't follow concensus, edit wars, revert wars, global renames, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

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:DropDeadGorgiasSucks — offensive reference to User:DropDeadGorgias. the account has been used to vandalise various date articles. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What need is there for an RfC? Block indefinitely as either a vandal or a username constituting a personal attack; your choice. --Carnildo 18:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As flattered as I am that my Username strikes fear in the hearts of vandals now, I would prefer a permenent ban on this username. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:40, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Sex fuck - No edits, clear violation of username policy, user page consists of a bunch of anatomical pictures. NTK 06:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Is blocked indefinitely. Refdoc 08:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User:GOD - has made 3 edits [5]. I have a feeling, based on the edits, that this is not the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • "GOD" is only a noun. What's so offensive? Exploding Boy 20:48, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe I'm concerned about mistaken identity. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 23:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • In that case this should be handled as with other celebrities. We should ask (him/her/they) to send an email to a sysop from their official website, www.God.com. -Willmcw 00:35, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • On a more serious note, I suspect many devout members of various faiths would find this offensive. Jayjg (talk) 23:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • especially since he seems to center on Christianity-related articles. Makes the acronym claim seem quite tongue-in-cheek. dab (ᛏ) 09:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree. I think he should just use "Good Ol' Dude" instead. Jobarts 02:05, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • Anyone's name could be said to be "only a noun." Jobarts 03:41, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Meh. For me, given the way the user writes the name, I don't think it can be considered offensive. Exploding Boy 20:49, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's as offensive as any other impersonator username--what's worse, a user whose name proclaims their faith or a user who claims to be the object of faith? I think if we were hardliners against blatantly Christian handles like JesusIsLord, we need to be equally hardline here. To do otherwise smacks of an anti-Christian bias, I think. Jwrosenzweig 23:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Just because it's capitalized? If someone capitalized your name, made up some phrase that used those letters and say it's an acronym, I don't think many people would appreciate that. Jobarts 02:18, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • Like J.O.B.A.R.T.S.: Journeying Obedient Being Assembled for Repair and Terran Sabotage (The Cyborg Name Generator)? No, I think a name change is appropriate. Alphax τεχ 12:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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=12266752"