Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

Shortcut:
WP:RFC/A

For more information, see the main page Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Contents




Biographies

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Talk:John Turturro This material appears to be a deliberate attempt to publically humiliate Turturro.
  • Talk:Matthew Shepard Discussion about whether this article should be titled Matthew Shepard or Murder of Matthew Shepard. Page has now been arbitrarily moved to the latter title twice as an end-run around the lack of consensus.
  • Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide Was Bernard Lewis "condemned" in a French court, or did he "receive an adverse civil judgment"? See the diff on the talk page.
  • Talk:Dan Willis There is an ongoing discussion regarding the notability of this author that needs additional input to resolve
  • Talk:Rush Limbaugh Should Limbaugh's comments regarding 401(k) plans be in his entry?
  • Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 11 Dispute about summary of Los Angelous Times article. Should "Several editors including Lipson started a rival website, RationalWiki, from which they criticize, lampoon Conservapedia and organize cyber-vandalism against Conservapedia." be striken, reworded, or left as an accurate summary of an LA Times article?
  • Talk:Dwight Lauderdale Newly added, check for suitability
  • Talk:Stuart Campbell (journalist) Should there be an implied link between Fairplay campaign and share price fluctuations for GAME group? And does 83.67.217.135 represent WP:COI editing?
  • Talk:Hasan di Tiro All the sources point to that Suharto reversed autonomy leaving only the name
  • Talk:Natalee Holloway There is a debate as to the proper naming of this article. Since the article is primarily devoted to Natalee Holloway's disappearance, some feel that it should have a name reflecting disappearance in the title. Others have stated that the primary topic remains "Natalee Holloway", and the fact that other policies restrict what aspects of Natalee Holloway can be discussed should not impact the title.
  • Talk:Lacey Chabert Should the following sourced statement be included in the article: "On August 25, 2008, Chabert attended a fundraising dinner in Beverly Hills for John McCain's presidential campaign (with McCain in attendance)."
Manually-added entries:
add a discussion
  • Talk:Hasan di Tiro There is a debate on whether ethnic exclusivism/chauvinism is the sole reason Di Tiro choose independence.
  • Talk:Eliseo Soriano The charity he founded is true if you'll search it in Yahoo or Google but other users won't believe the website of the charity itself.
  • Request for comment on the Jorge Cortell bio page. Jorge Cortell is a spanish "professor" in Spain who gave copyleft talks. Controveries arosed in 2005 about his academic achievements led to the removal of his entry (his entry is about his copyleft achivements) in the Spanish edition of wikipedia in 2005.
The English edition of wikipedia should respect the Spanish edition of wikipedia. The English edition stated that he is a "well known" copyleft activists who gave dozens and dozens of conference speeches on copyleft issues in Spain. If he is so famous, why is his entry removed in the Spanish edition of wikipedia.
A user disputes authoritative and published lexical work by adding "disputed" and "dubious" tags for this article, kindly comment at Talk:Indo-Aryan_loanwords in Tamil


  • Talk:Stuart Campbell (journalist) - Please come and help with this. The talk page is full of arguments that even a little bit of WP experience should render moot. I had added an RfC to the page to try to sort out blatant COI editing in an article with a whole host of verifiability problems, some of them actually acknowledged in the article text. The editor whose "ownership" attitude to the page is causing trouble even went in and removed my RfC! Hence this manually-added one. There must be somebody out there who can actually help with this problem. Otherwise I think the article is basically beyond help.


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCbio| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }} to the talk page section where the discussion will be held.
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work, as they are used to separate parameters. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. The vertical pipe (|) works again.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comments.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

Economy and trade

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Talk:Autism Speaks Disagreement over whether text is neutral and users persistent overuse of 1 non-neutral source, and unwillingless to accept different and more neutral sources including news articles, TV interviews, and press releases, and tendentious comments, etc
  • Talk:Commerce Bancorp Should this be merged to another article
  • Talk:Olympic Airlines Can the comment of a single customer as reported by a Greek newspaper be included in the article?
  • Talk:VistaPrint I tagged the page as I perceived NPOV issues, extraneous material problems and unwarranted minimising/omission of well-known ongoing consumer complaints issues. Editors of page are self-admitted PR workers for VistaPrint. As I have limited experience, please help adjudge/convert this page to WKP norms
  • Talk:Australian diaspora Is this article neutral, notable, verifiable etc.?
Manually-added entries:
add a discussion


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCecon| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }} to the talk page section where the discussion will be held.
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work, as they are used to separate parameters. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. The vertical pipe (|) works again.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comments.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

History and geography

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Manually-added entries:
add a discussion


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFChist| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }} to the talk page section where the discussion will be held.
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work, as they are used to separate parameters. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. The vertical pipe (|) works again.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comments.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

Language and linguistics

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide Was Bernard Lewis "condemned" in a French court, or did he "receive an adverse civil judgment"? See the diff on the talk page.
  • Talk:Yue Chinese Mismatch of title and wording of text: User wants to change wording of the topic in the text from "Yue" to "Cantonese" even though, so far, people have disagreed with moving the page from "Yue Chinese" to several proposals using "Cantonese".
Manually-added entries:
add a discussion


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFClang| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }} to the talk page section where the discussion will be held.
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work, as they are used to separate parameters. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. The vertical pipe (|) works again.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comments.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

Mathematics, natural science and technology

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Talk:Fighter aircraft I think predictions about distant future do not belong here.
  • Template talk:Infobox Automobile Repeated deadlock; do we use production dates or U.S. model years?
  • Talk:Homosexual transsexual One editor says that this article is about an obscure term and that the article should have limited scope. Another says it is about a phenomena, a set of behaviors, and should have broad scope. Who is right?
  • Talk:Ronnie Nader There is an ongoing dispute on the reliability of the current article's sources. Criticism on talk page objects to much of the article's characterization of the subject. Please comment.
  • Talk:Wilderness acquired diarrhea Item in article criticized on talk page for being based on false reasoning but criticism on talk page alleged to be original research
  • Talk:Twinject the last portion of the "Canada" section of the article appears to be a press release from the company that makes the Twinject. Is its information usable in its current form, or would a link to its text be better?
Manually-added entries:
add a discussion

mm

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCsci| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }} to the talk page section where the discussion will be held.
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work, as they are used to separate parameters. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. The vertical pipe (|) works again.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comments.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

Art, architecture, literature, media, culture, games

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Manually-added entries:
add a discussion


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCmedia| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }} to the talk page section where the discussion will be held.
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work, as they are used to separate parameters. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. The vertical pipe (|) works again.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comments.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

Politics

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche Is removal of sourced material a proper application of WP:BAN, or is it a case where WP:IAR should apply in order to improve the article?
  • Talk:Joe the Plumber There is a dispute about whether the should include information about the Union endorsement of Obama. One side says the Union endorsement should be included because it is in the source and we do not get to pick and choose information from a Reliable Source. The other side says the source does not make any overt connection between the Union's endorsement and "Joe" not completing the Union program, therefore including the information about the Union endorsement is off topic as it leads readers to draw conclusions not explicit in the source material - a violation of WP:SYN.
  • Talk:Paul Wellstone Is mention of government conpiracy theory violagion of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE
  • Talk:Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy Dispute covered in the talk section above, but just self evident from the edit history on the page, where the above pooster keeps reverting what are quite reasonable and sourced edits for changing, invented reasons. He has a new reason each time for why it doesn't count, and I'm getting sick of it.
  • Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 Should information about al-Qaeda's so-called "endorsement" of McCain's campaign, which has appeared in the Washington Post, New York Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencier and many other reliable sources, and was considered important enough for the McCain campaign itself to respond to, be deleted from this article?
  • Talk:William Timmons should information about Timmons' lobbying on behalf of Saddam Hussein, as discussed in reliable sources based on information in public court records uncovered by a well known investigative journalist, be deleted from this page?
  • Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 39 Should Palin bio's infobox term her parttime occupation as that of businessperson or commercial fishing?
  • Talk:Joe the Plumber/Archive 3 Every http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title
  • Talk:Australian diaspora Is this article neutral, notable, verifiable etc.?
Manually-added entries:
add a discussion

I would like to request an article that lists the results (by state) of all the ballot initiatives for the November 4th general elections in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.217.220 (talk • contribs)

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCpol| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }} to the talk page section where the discussion will be held.
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work, as they are used to separate parameters. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. The vertical pipe (|) works again.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comments.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

Religion and philosophy

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Manually-added entries:
add a discussion

Talk: Wiccan

who all is wiccan and what is the difference between wicca and pagan... i think it is just that pagan is the umbrella term covering many religions like wicca... but i could be wrong... how would you explain it?

Paganism is just a term to describe the belief in many gods, Wicca is generally accepted as a pagan religion.

Little Pagan GRL (talk)

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCreli| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }} to the talk page section where the discussion will be held.
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work, as they are used to separate parameters. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. The vertical pipe (|) works again.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comments.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

Society, sports, law and sex

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Talk:World Wrestling All-Stars Quotes do not seem encyclopaedic and do not have references.
  • Talk:Cure Autism Now Should the article be merged/redirected or left alone?
  • Talk:Olympic Council of Ireland A determined group of editors has decided to ensure that the term "Republic of Ireland" may not appear in this article, even though other editors consider that it is necessary to make clear to readers that the OCI represents the Republic and not the whole island of Ireland.
  • Talk:YouPorn Is it a reason for us not linking to YouPorn?
  • Talk:Felony disenfranchisement Disagreement over style
  • Talk:WrestleCrap edit war over whether "the late" is appropriate when referring to Merle Vincent, who is deceased
  • Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen The book "The Man Who Would Be Queen. The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism" caused an uproar when it was released that continues to this day. Last year a special issue of "Archives of Sexual Behavior" a psychology journal, was devoted to this controversy and a number of peer commentaries on the article, and the ideas in the book in general. We have already been through the Reliable sourced notice board. The result was that the peer reviewed article is a reliable source, but that the usability of the peer commentaries should follow WP:SPS. The question is just what makes one an expert, just the strict letter of SPS or the more general common sense notion of an expert as being someone with knowledge and experience of the topic.
  • Talk:Paella Please help us find reliable historic information for the evolution of Paella. Several editors seem to be arguing over this rather minor issue. These are: user:Bluee Mountain, user:Mountolive, user:Warrington, anonymous user:169.139.19.214 (Texas Pete), and user:LuisGomez111 (myself)
  • Talk:Australian diaspora Is this article neutral, notable, verifiable etc.?
  • Talk:Dignity revert war
Manually-added entries:
add a discussion


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCsoc| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }} to the talk page section where the discussion will be held.
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work, as they are used to separate parameters. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. The vertical pipe (|) works again.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comments.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

Style issues

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Manually-added entries:
add a discussion
  • User:MSJapan/Freemasonry MOS‎ I'm worried that this is becoming a proxy to put a certain view of Freemasonry as the norm across Wikipedia. It also seems redefine policies, particularly WP:BLP (by extending it to all people, living and dead). JASpencer (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: RfC is premature. The MOS in question is a draft in user space. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: User chocolateboy (despite his/her impressive history of contributions to wikipedia) has repeatedly removed Release histories from multiple articles without discussion, and sometimes claiming it was in a cleanup tag when it was not. He/she has ignored comments on his talk page, and is removing valuable information. In addition, he/she removed the firefox one solely because it was mentioned after the initial talk page discussion. Why, the Firefox page has already passed GA status! There is nothing unencyclopedic about release histories. Especially when they only present the main versions/are going to be modified as such. They provide history of the software in a neat and organized manner, which versions are supported, major differences, etc. As I stated on his/her talk page (See Here), removal of this information is detrimental, and extremely time consuming to reattain. In the ardent application of WP:NOT, chocolateboy seems to have forgotten WP:NOTLAW. Lastly, just because it can be found elsewhere, does not mean it doesn't belong on wikipedia. And they are NOT COPIED. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I created a category called Category:stub parent categories which took a categiory of 6,000 items and refines it to 46 items. for some reason this has met with opposition. people seem to oppose it over minute issues. can anyone please chime in? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCstyle| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }} to the talk page section where the discussion will be held.
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work, as they are used to separate parameters. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. The vertical pipe (|) works again.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comments.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

Policies, guidelines and proposals

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Manually-added entries:
add a discussion

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Dear Wikipedians,

It appears to me that the full scope of Wikipedia's Review process for Science related articles only arises "by force" when the article is slated for deletion (is nomination for deletion constitutes more or less "by chance" random event ? - please correct/clarify my guess on the "randomness" of that deletion nomination process ...). Further, it appears that this Wikipedia's Review (which seems to be only arises in full scale during the argument for deletion ) is conducted in overly-democratic fashion where every "editor", irregardless of his qualifications in the area of the discussion, is allowed to have a voice.

Of course I understand that the "consensus" requirement is built-in into this process to alleviate possible "ignorance" of the majority "nay say-ers" ... but since in such review there is no mandatory participation of the person with sufficient "expert" credentials, thus (in my humble view) the "consensus" requirement is not fully working as designed (to preclude from the ignorant judgment outcome) and the review "quality" is less than to be desired (also note that such review process doesn't conform with the scientific publication review requirements due to lack of appropriate qualifications among the reviewing peers ...).

Would it be beneficial (for the Science articles only) to introduce the list of "participating" "qualified" reviewers, of which at least one should be involved into each review ?

Also it appears that there are possibly 3 areas of qualifying the Wikipedia's Science related article (each qualification area would require its own list): a) Scientific content b) Editorial (style, format. etc.) appearance c) Legal conformance

Please note that in my proposal I am only suggesting to use expert editors for science related articles. I could retreat further and suggest that such review (by expert editors) could be used just as an an optional feature (again for science related articles) either requested by the author of the article (for the purpose nomination of the article to become attested as attaining the "scientific publication" quality ) or by admin/editors during the deletion discussion, when they feel that the participation of experts is needed to decide on the issue.

On another hand (optionally) Wikipedia may consider to extend its charter (from being just an encyclopedia) and create/keep the section for the "original scientific research" postings - being clear marked as experimental and NOT fully reliable info ... That would allow Wikipedia to perform / stand as a "catalyst for change and innovation".

Could we start the discussion on that ? Apovolot (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCpolicy| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }} to the talk page section where the discussion will be held.
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work, as they are used to separate parameters. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. The vertical pipe (|) works again.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comments.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

User conduct

Shortcuts:
WP:RFCC
WP:RFC/USER
WP:RFC/ADMIN
WP:RFC/BOT
WP:RFC/U redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Request for checkuser (WP:RFCU) or for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names (WP:RFC/NAME)

This process page is undergoing reform discussion on its talk page here.

This process is for discussing specific users who may have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In order to request comments on a user's actions, follow the instructions to create a subpage in the section below. Disputes over the writing of articles, including disputes over how best to follow the NPOV policy, belong in Article content disputes.

Before using this page, you should have read the general instructions on RfCs for users. You might also want to read some suggestions on how to present an RfC case.

Uncertified user RfCs

Requests for comment which do not meet the minimum requirements 48 hours after creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users for the minimum requirements. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained.

Instructions

Different RfCs have been run in different ways, and there are few hard and fast rules. An RfC's general structure in dealing with user conduct is:

  • A statement of the dispute, including an evidence section with diffs
  • The subject's response
  • Individual Views from other editors
  • A list of which editors endorse each of the above sections

To create a new User Conduct RfC, follow the instructions in the "General User Conduct" section below.

Once the RfC is created, it should be listed in the "Candidate pages" section, until two different users have certified the RfC. After certification, the RfC is then moved from the "Candidate pages" section to the "Approved pages" section.

RfC guidelines

Once a User Conduct RfC has been opened and certified, other editors can take a look and offer comments, either by posting their own view, or endorsing someone else's view.

The following represents the guidelines formed by general practice. These are not policies or "rules", but advice on how most RfCs are run:

  • Anyone, including those who wrote the original RfC, is allowed to post their own view, in a separate section with their name on it, such as ==View by <name>== It can be helpful to indicate the viewpoint of the particular editor, such as "Outside view" "Inside view" "Semi-involved view" etc.
  • In most cases those who brought the RfC do not post individualized views, since the initial statement already indicates their thoughts, but in some cases they may wish to post an additional individualized view to clarify their opinion. Either method is acceptable.
  • Other users can endorse a view, by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.
  • All signed comments and talk that are neither a view nor an endorsement should be directed to the discussion page.
  • Any other types of discussion should be directed to the talkpage.
  • Anyone can endorse any view, regardless of whether or not they are outside parties, inside parties, or even the subject of the RfC. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse.
  • You may endorse as many views as you wish. You may also endorse the original RfC statement, and/or the subject's response.
  • Only endorse views with which you agree. Do not post "disagreement" endorsements. The lack of a signature is sufficient indication that there may be some disagreement with the statement.

For more information on how previous RfCs have been run, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive.

Closing and archiving

Disputes may be removed from this page and archived under any of the following circumstances:

  1. If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped.
  2. The parties to the dispute agree.
  3. The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration.

Remove the link from the list here and add it to the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. If the dispute is handled in mediation or arbitration, please make a note of where the dispute resolution process continued.

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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user as a template, and then list it as follows:

Example user
{one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~ (note: that is five tildes, not four, RFCs are signed with the date only, not your username)

Use this form to generate a new page:


An alternate template example is available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user2. This new template has been redesigned from the original to try and focus more on discussion than conflict. If you would like to use this template, create a subpage and list it the same as a normal RFC:

Example user2
{one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~ (note: that is five tildes, not four, RFCs are signed with the date only, not your username)

Or use this form to generate a page:


Note: In certain rare situations, the above methods may not work if there has already been a User Conduct RfC on that particular user, since clicking on the button will simply take you to the old page. If this happens, you will need to manually create the next page in the series. For example, if you wanted to create the third RfC on John Doe, you would create a page at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Doe 3]], and then list the new page in the "Candidate" section below. If you have any questions on this, you can ask at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct.

Candidate pages (users)

Approved pages (users)

These RfCs have met the two-person threshold. List newer entries on top.

Doc James

The main problem is ownership and the ugly unwikipedian stepsisters that accompany ownership, such as personal attacks and edit warring. 23:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings

Disruption of the community by failing to accept consensus. 16:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm

Ongoing problems related to Blackworm's behaviour at the Circumcision article and related articles. 00:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC) (Comments are invited now that Blackworm has responded, which was 23:50, 9 November 2008.)

Hemanshu

That Hemanshu has failed to respond to inquiries about his edits. 01:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

GabrielVelasquez

Has engaged in out-of-the-blue personal attacks, failed to assume good faith, tossed around several accusations of sockpuppetry and in general he is prone to aggressive, disruptive behaviour. -- 22:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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, blocking or unblocking users, and enforcing Arbitration Committee decisions. 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:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example admin
Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~

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 (admins)

Approved pages (admins)

These RfCs have met the two-person threshold. List newer entries on top.

Use of bot privileges

This section is only for discussions specifically related to the operation of a bot. This includes the actions of unauthorized bots, bots without flags, and inter-wiki bots. It does not include the use of scripts or semi-automated tools on a user's account. If the dispute is over a bot owner'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:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example bot
Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~

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 (bots)

Approved pages (bots)

These RfCs have met the two-person threshold. List newer entries on top.

User names

Shortcuts:
WP:RFC/NAME
WP:RFCN

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be inappropriate under Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:

  • For blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, post to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
  • For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
  • If the username is NOT blatantly inappropriate, and the user has made no edits, do not post as there is no need to take any action.
  • If you wish to contest or question the blocking of a user by an administrator, please do not post the issue here. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator or with other administrators.
  • Make sure that the user in question has not already been blocked prior to bringing their username here.
  • The user in question should first be notified on their talk page about the concern regarding their username before adding the report here.

You may wish to use {{subst:uw-username}} for this purpose. Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply. If after that you still believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here and explain which part of the username policy you think it violates.

Instructions for closing administrators

This page has Archives:

  1. To May 1, 2007
  2. Alphabetical (current)

Tools: Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist

List requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|reason ~~~~}}

Reports

Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). Bolded recommendations are not necessary. There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.

Beauchamps High School

Beauchamps High School (talk · contribs)

Account's edits to date are all constructive, but are all to Beauchamps School. Username would appear to be in breach of the username policy because it is effectively a company/group name solely editing about itself. I raised the issue of the username with the editor(s?) in September, but had no reply, and the account has edited again today. Thoughts? BencherliteTalk 14:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem, as long as they are constructive. There certainly wouldn't be a problem with a User:PhilliesFan from editing Philadelphia Phillies. That being said, a warning about WP:NPOV and WP:COI would be appropriate. GrszReview! 14:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but here we've got the equivalent of User:Philadelphia Phillies giving the impression through its name of being the official voice of the school since the account uses the full name of the school to edit; it's not a name likeUser:Beauchamps High School fan or User:Beauchamps High School student. BencherliteTalk 14:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The account is implying, and is obviously, being shared by more than one user. They should be notified of this. Wisdom89 (T / C) 14:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This sounds too much like a role account, and it should be renamed. Shereth 15:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Just so that I'm clear on my position. Yes, this smacks of a role account, and I feel, like Shereth, that it should definitely be renamed. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I would require renaming as well. Even if it is not actually being shared, it gives the impression of being an "official" or role account, which is not permitted. --MCB (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Require rename as role account. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Not to be redundant, but WP:NOSHARE and Meta:Role account are pretty clear about this. If they continue to edit without joining the discussion I think they should probably be temporarily blocked until they choose a new name. -kotra (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See also

Wikipedia content modification information:

  • This page was last modified on 15 November 2008, at 20:21.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All".

The URL for this specific entry is:

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.