Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guanaco (talk | contribs) at 04:51, 21 July 2004 (→General user conduct). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

Part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

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.

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.

List newer entries on top - do not sign entries.
  • Talk:George_W._Bush - Popularity outside of U.S. - dispute over wording of paragraph, poll needs more voters.
  • evolutionism talk just generally request any comments from people who are not as POV as us two.
  • Talk:Mesa, Arizona - Should articles include the Pima language or any other foreign name in the article headers?
    Example: Mesa (Pima Mohmli) is a city...
  • Category talk:Cold War people - discussion as to how extensive this category should be, and whether additions of people whose article don't discuss their involvement in the Cold War should be included.
  • Talk:Invisible Pink Unicorn - There is a debate about whether a drawing of the Invisible Pink Unicorn against a white background and a sighting of her in a town square in Puerto Rico should be included in the article.
There is difficulty in reaching agreement about which image captions would most accurately describe their images.
  • Talk:Israel Shahak - Page has been protected, again, following revert wars between Zero0000 and RK. This page and the page Edward Said, have been the subject of on-again, off-again edit wars involving many of the same people for 18 months. Dan Keshet and Zero0000 say on the talk page that RK is "not prepared to be honest in debating", while RK says Zero is making "outrageous lies" against him and engaging in censorship. There is no substantive movement on the points that were being edit-warred over. Note that much of the prior discussion of this page actually appeared on Talk:Edward Said.
  • Talk:Robert Oppenheimer - Should the first paragraph (summary) of the article include the sentences: "Nuclear weapons, which he developed, caused hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in Japan, and soon were a decisive factor in an ever escalating 50-year Cold War arms race between the superpowers, that at times came close to the extermination of all mankind from the planet. Nuclear nonproliferation, which Oppenheimer championed, is still a major global issue." One user argues that Nuclear weapons were a development of civilizational importance, and should be mentioned, other argues that addition is NPOV, not relevant to summary of person's life, and is covered elsewhere in article anyway.
  • Talk:Childlover is an article about pedophiles. Conflicts are about whether it should argue that "non-violent" "consensual" sex with children is nothing bad, whether it should display a list of links to forums of such people, and whether it should have links to organizations that help both pedophiles searching for treatment and those who suffer from the described "love".
  • Talk:Iran-Contra Affair: Dispute over whether to label the elected Nicaraguan Sandinista government as "Soviet-aligned".
  • Talk:John Boone: The Red Mars page had several stubs on the individual characters in this series, such as John Boone which were listed on 'Votes for Deletion'. Talk page indicates consensus of the deletion votes was to redirect to Red Mars page rather than delete the stubs. Subsequently, a user wishes to remove the redirects and develop the stubs. Early discussion may be found at Talk:Red Mars.
  • Talk:Anti-American_sentiment: Dispute over how to include alleged consequence of terrorism and view that fundamentalist islamic terrorism is not directed solely against the US, wording of introduction.
  • Talk:Relative_motion_theory - the beginnings of an edit war are brewing. It appears that the original researcher of material cited is attempting to correct factual and representative inaccuracies but is being reverted by other editors.
  • Talk:Ship model - discussion on whether ship model or model ship is the correct term for the purposes of primary article name. One party is changing multiple articles without reaching consensus.
  • Talk:Nebra skydisk - Apparently mainstream and sensible material about this archaeoastronomical object is being consistently suppressed by User:adamsan. Would folks with some archaeological grounding, and no superBriton axe to grind, please look at the article, the Talk page and the History, and bring some neutral sense and good manners to this problem?
  • Talk:Maharaji_(Prem_Rawat) - dispute over this guru's involvement in the Divine Light Mission. Extreme POV when discussing the ex-followers as if they are a hate group without allowing a discussion in the main article why they oppose the guru so much.
  • Talk:Early National Socialism/draft - A certain administrator will not let this be named "National Socialism", stole my work to make another site and is reverting content about the mix of nationalism with socialism.
  • Talk:Saddam Hussein - Lir insisting that the use of the name "Saddam" can be argued to be demeaning, vs. many other Wikipedians who have already had this discussion.
  • Talk:South Azerbaijan, Talk:Azerbaijan, Talk:History of Azerbaijan - Constant edit war going on between two versions of each of these pages (and probably more); one by anonymous users in the 198.81.26.* range, one by two named users. Anons are not discussing their reversions, but merely keep reverting to and adding to their own versions.
  • Talk:Kim Sun-il -- dispute over whether or not to include external links to videos, one showing his execution, and to stills, neither showing his execution.
  • Talk:Chelation therapy--dispute over whether statistic on use of chelation therapy in NCCAM report should be included--the report itself says that this statistic is not reliable or precise.
  • Talk:Phil Gingrey--anon repeatedly adding POV, emphasizing unimportant incident to make Gingrey look bad. Refuses to compromise on talk, or propose other changes.
  • Talk:Grand Admiral - Should this article be split into two? One dealing with Star Wars and the other with Germany. or remain a single unified article about Grand Admiral.
  • Talk:European Union#Origins of the EU - whether Nazi plans for a united Europe ought to be mentioned in the history section of the main article on the European Union, if it could be kept in the article on EU's history, or if it shouldn't be mentioned at all
  • Talk:Surrealism - what is the importance of Keith Wigdor (what is Surrealism 2003?), Daniel C.Boyer (does Daniel have too many articles posted in Surrealism and its related pages as a vested self-interest), Evi Moechel(Zazie, is she a cyberartist or surrealist?),Eric W.Bragg (is Eric a surrealist poet?),Franklin and Penelope Rosemont (did they meet Andre Breton as they allege and where is the proof of that meeting?) to surrealism;
  • Talk:Iran - dispute on whether Iran's alleged ties with terrorism in the 1980s should be included in Iran's history.
  • Talk:Communism - dispute on whether a certain negative quote by Reagan should be included. A more general question is whether it is appropriate to include heavily opinionated quotes by extreme opponents (or proponents) of something on controversial pages.
  • Talk:Allah - dispute over Allah in relation to Judaism and other religions.
  • Talk:Retributive justice - Dispute over accuracy of article (it appears to be rather confused as to what exactly constitutes Retributive Justice). Article was written by an anonymous user, so no response to comments and suggestions.
  • Talk:Dido - A NPOV/factual dispute as to whether a reconstruction of Dido's life "based on new studies" should appear in the article.
  • Talk:Pikey. (particularly FAO British contributors) This currently read like a tabloid article. It needs serious NPOV attention or a complete rewrite.
  • Talk:List of Pantheists - two users are in serious disagreement and on the verge of an edit war about whether this list should contain self-identified pantheists, those that have been called pantheist by others at some point, or something in between.
  • Talk:Erika Steinbach - classical edit war/reversion war over whether the POV of the revanchist organisation Steinbach heads merits mentioning, and then how to combine this with the point of view of Polish nationalists at the other end of this RL-conflict
  • Talk:Birmingham. Should Nick Mason be included? Various issues with personal attacks and text removals.
  • Talk:Coca-Cola - Should Pepsi/the stock ticker be mentioned in the opening paragraph? Should there be an overview of Coke's medical controversies in the opening paragraph? One user argues that the article is not NPOV and that Coke is viewed as unhealthy by the medical community, but does not provide any sources to counter the article's sources.

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

  • /K1 - Allegations : multiple personal attacks, POV editing, removal of dispute notices
  • /User:Rienzo - Allegations: personal attacks, vandalism of a user page
  • /RK - Allegations: Libel, edit wars

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

  • /Raul654 - Allegations: Improperly protecting a page

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.

User dispute archive

Convention disputes

List newer entries on top

Resolved convention disputes

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment&oldid=4759106"