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
AlexR (talk | contribs)
3,829 edits
Line 38: Line 38:
==Article title disputes==
==Article title disputes==
'''Most recent entries at the top''' -- ''do not sign entries''
'''Most recent entries at the top''' -- ''do not sign entries''
*[[Gender]] Large parts of the article keep getting removed, among other "''removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary)''".
*[[Talk:Yoghurt]] -- The article was moved from the original's author's designation of "yogurt" to the [[Commonweath English]] "yoghurt". The move apparently was not with a concensus, or most likely moved with a weak concensus (probably due to the fact that "yogurt" is not a "hot" topic). The article has now been placed on [[Wikipedia:Requested_moves#May_12.2C_2005| requested moves]], May 12, 2005.
*[[Talk:Yoghurt]] -- The article was moved from the original's author's designation of "yogurt" to the [[Commonweath English]] "yoghurt". The move apparently was not with a concensus, or most likely moved with a weak concensus (probably due to the fact that "yogurt" is not a "hot" topic). The article has now been placed on [[Wikipedia:Requested_moves#May_12.2C_2005| requested moves]], May 12, 2005.
* [[Talk:Social Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden]] -- The article was moved here without any previous discussion. There's a dispute going on whether it should be moved back, to the form officially used by the party itself ([[Swedish Social Democratic Party]]), which is also the form supported by many major international institutions as well as the most commonly used form elsewhere.
* [[Talk:Social Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden]] -- The article was moved here without any previous discussion. There's a dispute going on whether it should be moved back, to the form officially used by the party itself ([[Swedish Social Democratic Party]]), which is also the form supported by many major international institutions as well as the most commonly used form elsewhere.

Revision as of 19:15, 17 May 2005

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

Closing RFCs

  • A RFC should be closed when a stable consensus has been reached; as a rule of thumb, if there are no serious objections for a full week
  • A RFC should be delisted from here (and listed in the archive section) when closed.
  • A RFC on a person should be speedily delisted if it is not endorsed by two separate people within 48 hours.

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

  • Gender Large parts of the article keep getting removed, among other "removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary)".
  • Talk:Yoghurt -- The article was moved from the original's author's designation of "yogurt" to the Commonweath English "yoghurt". The move apparently was not with a concensus, or most likely moved with a weak concensus (probably due to the fact that "yogurt" is not a "hot" topic). The article has now been placed on requested moves, May 12, 2005.
  • Talk:Social Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden -- The article was moved here without any previous discussion. There's a dispute going on whether it should be moved back, to the form officially used by the party itself (Swedish Social Democratic Party), which is also the form supported by many major international institutions as well as the most commonly used form elsewhere.
  • Talk:Antoine Carême -- title dispute involves most appropriate/used name and involves links to other articles.
  • Talk:Bowser (Nintendo) -- a vote on if he should have his Article changed to King Bowser or to have it remain the same.
  • 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:Football#Nuclear Football Should a disambig notice linking to Nuclear Football be placed at the top of Football? One party will not argue his position but reverts whenever the disambig is placed.
  • Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo Need input into dispute between members and former member over article POV.
  • Talk:Perverted-Justice.com. Edit-revert war going on for months: mostly the site administrator of Perverted Justice vs. everyone else on Wikipedia. My own personal involvement makes me a non-neutral party, therefore I am requesting assistance from more NPOV Wikipedians and administrators.
  • Talk:Gaza Strip. Anonymous editor wants to insert several links to his photograph pages in this and related articles.
  • Talk:Pope Benedict XVI — Debate over the use of Pope Benedict XVI's style in the introduction of the article. Issues similar to the ones occuring in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article.
  • Talk:Fidel Castro. Several issues all in talk. Issues are primarily with the introduction and several of the more controversial subsections of the article.
  • Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom — a minor argument about the use of titles, and a major problem of the NPoV status of the whole article
  • Talk:Terri Schiavo. Two issues - addition of links to user's own web site - claim of self-notability. Second, dispute over NPOV on emphasis placed on various diagnoses of PVS (legal position) and MCS (alternative diagnosis)
  • Talk:Jesus#Problems with this article. Dispute over the balance of the article, which one editor claims to be PoV.
  • Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Why does the table of the emblems belong here? -- appropriateness of the table systematizing official emblems of major Palestinian organizations. A common element (the map of Israel) on the emblems contradicts official policy of the Palestinian Authority and therefore contributes to the conflict.
  • Talk:Ahvaz - A NPOV dispute about this Iranian location's history. See also Talk:Khuzestan for a related NPOV dispute between the same users.
  • Talk:Nebula class starship - The inclusion of weapons counts for Star Trek ships is in dispute. Weapons counts are derived from studying footage from the shows and examining pictures of official models. These counts can be open to intepretation. It is disputed whether this may be considered original research and ineligible for inclusion.
  • Talk:Internet Explorer - Dispute over including criticism of the browser, and possible anti-MS bias.
  • Talk:Greater Serbia - A seemingly intractable dispute between two editors. Input from anyone with specialist knowledge would be helpful.
  • Talk:Woman - Dispute about if the term "bitch" is used affectionatly in some communities.
  • Talk:Allies - Should WWII Allies be divided into Major or Minor, or listed by date of entry/alphabetically? Note that current Major/Minor division seems to be a POV invented on Wikipedia.
  • Talk:Cheating in Counter-Strike - The article's conclusion is that essentially, Pro gamers have to cheat to remain competitive. This is of course quite a statement, RfC'ing! The article was set on disputed (presumably till next friday) and additional input is requested, especially from more experienced wikipedians that know how to deal with such issues. (Presumably NPOV & factually correct articles that people may find offensive)
  • Talk:Orkut#Brazilian invasion - Dispute over the neutrality and the factual accuracy regarding the situation of the Brazilian users in the orkut virtual community.
  • Talk:Saudi Arabia -- see section Factual corrections, the dispute is over whether institutions like the mutaween (religious police) exist in countries other than Saudi Arabia.
  • Talk:Libertarian Party (United States) -dispute over POV on "prominent libertarians".
  • Talk:Fallout (computer game) - dispute over the description of Fallout community, each of which is claimed to be POV by the author of the other.
  • Talk:Dieselboy - Two users disagreed, third opinion was sought, one user is refusing to respect the third opinion.
  • Talk:Jerome H. Lemelson - A personal threat to engage in a dispute with Wikipedia is made on the page, after added matter was removed on grounds of lack of neutrality and original research.
  • Talk:DVD — Should the topic of DVD-Audio be split into its own article?
  • Talk:Death Star - Wording describing the size of the Death Star. Which wording has less POV?
  • Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru - disputes between registered and anonymous users over whether a lengthy, unsourced section containing comparisons between Nehru and Joseph Stalin should be included.
  • Talk:Islamofascism Issues:- whether behavior of Admin:Mel Etitis in banning only one side of an RV war that Mel Etitis was involved in, is acceptable.
-whether behavior of Admin: jpgordon in locking a topic he was involved in to a specific edit, is acceptable.
-Ongoing questions on what factual information should be allowed into article following a failed VfD and repeated vandalism (wholesale content deletion).
It's inappropriate to refer to article editing you disagree with as "vandalism". User:Grace Note explained his edits fully on the Talk page. He removed various material that he felt was original research and not properly sourced.
Except that various editors with admin status have been involved in condoning abusive and vandalist edits whose POV (anti existance of Islamofascism) they agree with. Klonimus 15:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Jesus - whether using "Before Christ" (BC) and "Anno Domini" (AD, or in the year of the Lord) or "Before Common Era" (BCE) and "Common Era" (CE) is POV -- particularly with regard to the Jesus article (Note: see Wikipedia Manual of Style)
  • 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: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: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.
  • 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?

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

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

  • /Whig - disruptive behaviour, misunderstanding that WP works by consensus
  • /KapilTagore - virulent personal attacks, lack of civility, POV warring, 3RR violations
  • /Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters - disruptive behaviour, personal attacks, misunderstanding that WP works by consensus
  • /KaintheScion - Repeated personal attacks after being warned to stop, 3RR violations, false accusations of vandalism against other users
  • /Daniel C. Boyer - Use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for self-promotion, personal attacks and general hostility towards those who have attempted to dissuade him of this practice, attempts to restore deleted article about self through use of anonymous IPs.
  • /OleMaster - At least two WP:NPA violations, several bits of vandalism
  • /Trey Stone - Endless edit warring, 3RR violations, ignoring NPOV process, lack of civility
  • /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.

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:EricI234 impersonating me (User:Ericl234) - note fifth letter ell in mine, eye in his. Was committing vandalism, after some discussion on our talk pages, has reformed, is now User:Adartse. He agrees to block of old username. -- ericl234 talk 08:53, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:NPOV - NPOV (talk · contribs) - potenially misleading username; User page redirects to WP:NPOV. Guettarda 18:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • User:ClockworkSouI Impersonating User:ClockworkSoul. Last letter, change ell to eye. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Academic ChaIIenger Impersonating User:Academic Challenger by replacing the "L"s in Challenger with i's. (Sigh). FreplySpang (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Spastika Either it's an offensive "swastika" or an offensive "spastic". Either way, gimme a break. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Keith-Wigdor Previously blocked for impersonation of the real "Keith Wigdor", himself allegedly an editor here. Now editting again. Alai 03:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Monkeyspanker - violates ban on sexual references in usernames. He is currently blocked until April 15 for vandalism. The username should be blocked permanently. Firebug 20:05, 13 Apr 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 [3]. 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=13848046"