From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:RFC/A

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

Contents 1 Biographies 2 Economy and trade 3 History and geography 4 Language and linguistics 5 Mathematics, natural science and technology 5.1 Biology and related 5.2 Clinical and medical topics 5.3 Mathematics 5.4 Physical science 5.5 Technology and engineering 5.6 Fringe science 6 Art, architecture, literature and media 7 Politics 8 Religion and philosophy 9 Society and law 10 Style issues 11 Policies, guidelines and proposals 12 User conduct 12.1 Uncertified user RfCs 12.2 Closing and archiving 12.3 General user conduct 12.3.1 Candidate pages 12.3.2 Approved pages 12.4 Use of administrator privileges 12.4.1 Candidate pages 12.4.2 Approved pages 13 User_names 14 See also

[edit] Biographies

Shortcut: WP:RFC/BIO

Requests for comment on Biographies Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about. Provide a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page. Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~. Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

• Marc Ostrofsky Article creator, who is also the article subject, objected to my cutting the article back to here:[[1]] and reinstated his preferred version. Which version should be kept? Thanks! - Richfife 18:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Lewis Libby#RfC Dispute about whether inclusion of Libby's religion has satisfied WP:BLP, and about appropriateness of including his specific house of worship. Notmyrealname 02:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Abu Zubaydah#RfC_on_article No disputes (so far). I reorganized the content and it appears that a whole separate article is contained within the original article. The separate article is related to criticism of the incarceration/interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. It is |substantially longer than the article on Zubaydah himself. I would like comments on whether this should be a separate article. Secondarily, I wonder, if we keep that information in the biography, should it take up that much room? 03:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Stephen Barrett#Request for comment: Board certification - Disagreement over whether Barrett's board-certification status is relevant or notable enough to include in his article. 18:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Pearse Jordan#British army fired CS gas into the family home - Disagreement over whether a source (Tirghra, "a book honouring 364 IRA volunteers who lost their lives during the Troubles" [2]) is a reliable secondary source, or an unreliable primary source. No previous familiarilty with the book is required. 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Manfred_von_Richthofen#Jewish_ancestry.3F A very heated argument/Edit war involving suitability of a reference and much uncivil behavior from multiple parties. 00:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Ward_Churchill - Disagreement over inclusion of Churchill in Category:Conspiracy theorists. 13:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Israel Shahak#Request for Comment A discussion is ongoing as to whether recent changes improved the neutrality. Input would be appreciated. 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Paul_Myers_(record_producer)#Request_for_Comment There is some disagreement over the biography of this individual, and to what extent it should include all this person's work, his commercial services, industry awards, etc. 18:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Yisroel Dovid Weiss#Request for Comment: Repetitious/excessive criticism? Dispute over whether approximately two thirds of the article should be taken up with criticism of Rabbi Weiss, is most of said criticism repetitious and/or tangential? 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Bumping, hasn't been much response. Added specific proposals here.17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Reza Shah#Request for Comment - Dispute over whether a section detailing the subject's dealings with Nazi Germany is based on Allied propoganda or not. 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Dispute over whether a section detailing the subject's dealings with Nazi Germany should be included or not. 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Michael Cherney - Several anomalies here. A team of editors has been excising all links and information that shed a negative light on Cherney's activities. On the other hand, an anon has recently added some questionable personal information. I am concerned that the article has been penned and patrolled mostly by PR people who wish to present Cherney in the best possible light, possibly at the expense of Oleg Deripaska. See also the gushing prose at Michael Cherney Foundation. 09:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Kent Hovind#FreeHovind.com - Some editors removing all "pro-Hovind" links while keeping lots of "anti-Hovind" links, while others view this as biased and trying to make it look like Hovind has no support 01:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Creator of the website wanting to add a link to his website that has videos not made by the webpage maker and contains material taken from wikipedia. Arbustoo 03:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• James Buchanan - Two editors at odds over the use of certain information about James Buchanan's sexuality. --G2bambino 15:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Gillian McKeith - Is Google a reliable source? Can editors say 'she took legal action' when lawyers sent a letter for their unnamed client? 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Johann_Hari#Request for Comment: Disputed Photo - A dispute whether an image that the Mr. Hari denies is a picture of him, but looks like him and is captioned as him on Flickr, is usable on the article consistent with WP:ATT and WP:BLP. 13:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Muhammad/images - A dispute over the inclusion of depictions of Muhammad vis-a-vis aniconistic beliefs.09:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Burt Reynolds#Request for Comment - A dispute over the proper way to show that reliable sources differ on Burt Reynold's birthplace. 20:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Michael Richards#Request for Comment - A dispute over whether per Wikipedia guidelines about "notable controversies" being mentioned in the lead applies relative to the Worldwide publicized Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident. 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Ralph_Nader#Request_for_Comment - a Dispute over whether a given quote is appropriate for the lead of the article. 20:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Steven Hassan#Request_for_Comment I thought I already posted about this issue here, I guess not. I have become involved in an edit war regarding this biography. I would like someone not involved in this issue view the discussion page and offer to neutral advice. The Discussion page should explain everything. What upsets me about the other user is he/she says one thing, and then says another. For example, I am asked what changes in content would satisfy me. When I state what changes I would like to see, he/she says that I should really stick to problems about him/her. That was not what I was asked in the first place. This jumping around by this member is really exasperating
• Joseph McCarthy Requesting comments on the introduction; specifically how much of it should be devoted to purely biographical info on his early life, etc., vs. how much it should try to give an overview of the actions that made him famous and the historical context of those actions. See discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy#User:Kaisershatner's recent edits. 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Jon Katz The novelist, technology writer, and rural commentator. On the validity of the controversy section of his article which includes un-cited claims and has prompted a response from the author in its talk page. 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oliver Kamm The politics of Oliver Kamm, a blogger and occasional Times op-ed writer, who self describes as left wing, but supported the Iraq war and voted for the Conservative Party. Edit war just starting concerning the inclusion of a quote of Kamm's about socialism, which indicates his stance towards it. Claims that the inclusion of this is OR (and POV). Opinions sought.[[3]] 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Joe_Scarborough#Request_for_Comment A GA reviewer pointed out there is an ongoing edit war regarding this article, but myself is unaware. He suggested to bring it to arbitration, but I put it here first to see what's going on. 19:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Giulio Clovio#On Clovio's origin (16th century painter) - Do the sources used in the article suffice to mention his Macedonian ancestry as a clear fact, or only as a supposition ? - Ev 03:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Giulio Clovio#On GiorgioOrsini's sentence (16th century painter) - Do editors' personal comments on the sources belong in the body of the article ? - 03:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:John Funder - slow moving edit war over the inclusion of a passage alleging that this individual falsified a report. 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Tilman_Hausherr#Proposed deletion and Talk:Tilman_Hausherr#Lutheran Sect Commissioner If it can be established that the subject of the article has written pieces which appeared in a publication put out by a different individual, should information about the profession of that second individual be included in the subject's article, or is it original research to assume that information about the second individual reflects on the first? 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Heather Mills McCartney. Should the article be titled Heather Mills or Heather Mills McCartney and how should she be refered to in said artcle? 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy and trade

Shortcut: WP:RFC/ECON

Requests for comment on Economy and trade Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about. Provide a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page. Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~. Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

• Talk:Melaleuca (company) - could we have comment on how the article appears in relation to NPOV/promotional issues? 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Costco#Request_for_comments:_Employment_section_dispute -- The "Working at Costco" section, also, the nature of NPOV 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Erhard Seminars Training -- Whether or not to include navigational box to related articles {{LandmarkForum}}, at the bottom of the article Erhard Seminars Training. 21:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
• Talk:Nova_(English_school_in_Japan)#Request_for_comment: Discussion of what external links are acceptable to include in the article to maintain NPOV--ZayZayEM 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Hutchison Whampoa Is it appropriate to include internal links to topics mentioned in the article? 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines: Discussion of Airline article with wider impact.04:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History and geography

Shortcut: WP:RFC/HIST

Requests for comment on History and geography Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about. Provide a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page. Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~. Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

• Talk:Missouri#Largest_Metro_Area A revert war is happening about leaving St Louis, Missouri in the infobox as the largest metro area. One user has repeatedly removed it, citing that it is not vital information. The problem arises when this user and others (who are affiliated with Kansas City) personally attack user in favor of leaving the information in. 05:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:John Adams High School (Jamaica/Ozone Park, NY) A dispute about content in a school article. A user trims down school articles routinely to keep out what he calls "cruft"; another user wants to put a large amount of details about the school because he states "it really is a good school". 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Max_Headroom_pirating_incident#RfC:_External_links_to_videos A user has deleted a link in the External links section to a video because he believes that it is the same as another video already linked there. Another editor believes that the two videos are different and that the link should stay. Please comment. 00:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures There is currently a dispute over whether to list the total sum of European Union countries' military expenditures under the EU listing, or only the funding contributed towards the European Rapid Reaction Force. 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War#Requested move A long running dispute over the name of the page (see also Bangladesh_War and Bangladesh War (2)). --18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Dendera Temple complex Is it an open question in Egyptology, whether electricity was used in Ancient Egypt and whether a well known relief in the Hathor Themple depicts an incandescent light bulb? 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List of historical national capitals Whether or not to include national flags in teh article, and if so, whether those flags should represent the present nation that city resides in, or the historical nation the city was capital of. 04:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Essjay controversy#Requests for Comment: Essjay controversy: Disupte and edit war over the foundership of Wikipedia. Suggestions to resolve or bring it to relative talk pages have failed and a full protection of the article overturned, resulting continued edit warring. 08:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:German#RfC: Pruning down: Dispute about structuring of the disambiguation page for German, and how many links to include there. 06:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Direct_Action_Day#RfC: One editor is tagging inavlid sources, sources that don't relate to the information they are cited for and general other stuff he believes to be Weasel words and POV. The other editor (as well as a suspected sock-puppet) keeps reverting the article to remove the concerns. The Kinslayer 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Waverly Hills Sanatorium: An editor strongly believes that a handwritten note of a misspelling and a blurry, unreadable postcard, constitute as reliable sources. The editor has also misread (delibrately?) sources in a vein attempt to garner some credibility. 18:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Template talk:NYCS -- this template is currently being used for overlinking. --NE2 00:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#RfC:Was_Atomic_Bombing_of_Japan_a_War_Crime -- Long dispute over both the scope of the article, the inclusion of the atomic bombing of Japan, and the use of US references in comments about the US. Needs multiple fresh eyes and some conflict resolution. I have not gotten involved, other than to do this step. 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:2004 Madrid train bombings -- Protracted dispute between 2-3 users over how much weight to give certain media reports. A previous RfC yielded input from only myself. A new and fresh perspective is sorely needed for this lengthy and significant article.--Mantanmoreland 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Parma, Ohio -- Are the city council/city council presidents notable? Is the witch hunt section npov? Another edit war may be beginning...19:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Template_talk:Infobox_Australian_Place#Compromise_proposal Proposal for displaying counties and parishes (19th century subdivisions, still used in land titles, but little known today) in the Australian infobox template. 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Elián González: Should this article carry this link in its external links section. The link, from the University of Miami, is a resource created to better understand the phenomenon of Cuban rafters and describes itself as "a digital archive where you can explore the experiences of tens of thousands of citizens who have left Cuba in small boats, homemade rafts and other unusual craft." --15:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Sparta Is it appropriate or not to describe the ancient Greek city-state of Sparta as a superpower or not? Sparta as a superpower is sourced, though it doesn't necessarily reflect Wikipedia's definition of a superpower. 02:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Nero and the Great Fire Is it fair to present what some primary sources state were the reasons/rumors concerning the fire, or are they too muddled? 22:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Andijan_massacre#KazakPol.27s_Intro_Version How should we impartially present a synopsis of events within the introduction? -- 00:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Is this new and amended version of the article appropriate? Please comment here.18:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Zodiac Killer#RfC on External Link to Z Files A dispute about the propriety of an External Link. 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Iran#Vote on trimming the History Section We just want some opinions from non-Iran-affiliated editors so that the judgment is not constrained by having only Iranian opinions. The vote is over a proposed reduction in article size. Other sections of the talk page may provide some more background. 01:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Masonic Temple (Providence)#RFC - Name of Article Debate about renaming (moving) the article to "Renaissance Providence Hotel" - the building has been sold and renamed by it's owners, so we should use the current name.14:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:2004_Madrid_train_bombings#Request For Comment: How much weight shall the community assign to El Mundo Parties cannot agree on or move forward in the article without coming to a consensus about the among of weight to assign El Mundo. Someone, anyone, please! Need some help here!
• Talk:2004_Madrid_train_bombings#Request For Comment: Appropriate point to split article and guidelines for editors Even if parties can agree on El Mundo issue, splitting the article may be a desirable course of action. In this case, requested is how to split, and guidelines for editors in the independent forks.
• WP:RFC: Republic of China/Kuomintang (ROC/KMT) and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Should only the Republic of China be shown in the infobox, or should both the ROC and the Chinese Communist Party be shown as different Allied factions of the Pacific War? 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Gija Joseon Whether a paragraph about an alleged archaeological discovery of Jizi/Gija's tomb should be included in the article. (See [4].) 15:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Mediation Cabal case on Category:Kurdistan over whether or not the subcategories should be renamed or deleted because Kurdistan is not a country; has so far been ignored by all editors except cool cat. 22:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Azerbaijan (Iran) Dispute over the editing of history section, particularly a part concerning the aftermath of the fall of the Government established by the Soviet Union in Iranian Azerbaijan in 1945-1946. 22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Goguryeo Disputes over whether Goguryeo and Balhae should carry {{History of China}} template, and as to whether Chinese or Korean name should be listed first in the infoboxes. 15:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List_of_Hasidic_dynasties#Request_for_Comment:_Adding_Hasidic_dynasties. Dispute about what qualifies as a Hasidic dynasty. This is particularly focused on whether or not R. Boruch of Medzhibozh left a "Medzhibozh Hasidic dynasty" or not. --Klezmer 03:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Settlements. Disagreement on use of the term settlement. 20:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Discussion moved to new location SilkTork 10:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Kingdom of Great Britain#Request for Comment: name of the kingdom. There is a dispute over what name to attribute to the kingdom. 14:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani Content dispute about whether the article fits the definition of mass grave or not thus should be categorized as a mass grave or not21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Etruscan mythology At least two editor seem engaged in a war about content in that article, but I cannot help much with it because I know nothing of Etruscans. 10:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Indian_mathematics#Request_for_comment:_Reliable_Sources_for_Indian_Mathematics Feedback is requested for a problem on the Indian mathematics page (which is really "History of Indian Mathematics,") where two users have a disagreement about what constitutes reliable sources for claims in the article. 05:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:North America#Request for Comment: Continent North and South America, should it be mentioned that in some parts of the world they are considered a single continent? 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Kingdom of Germany#Last King of Scotland Is adding sources with passim acceptable, even if one has not read the source but is extrapolating from the title. Should someone wishing to verify the source be able to ask for page or paragraph details?
• World War II - Should Combatants and Commanders be listed in the article's infobox? If so, which are "major" enough to merit inclusion? 01:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language and linguistics

Shortcut: WP:RFC/LANG

Requests for comment on Language and linguistics Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about. Provide a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page. Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~. Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

Please note that this page is reserved for disputes in articles about language or linguistics, not policy disputes or language usage in unrelated articles.

• Talk:English language names for Chinese people, Talk:Chinaman, Talk:Chink. Are the latter two simply discussing two of the several English language names for Chinese people? Are they simply covering the same ground under different titles? Should these articles be merged? 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• What's the total number of speakers of the Tigrinya language? This problem lies at the heart of a dispute between users Itayb and Yom. The current Ethnologue report says: 4,449,875. Yom has calculated a better estimate. Itayb objects to Yom's estimate, deeming it the result of original research. The dispute has been going on since February 16 in the articles Semitic languages and Tigrinya language. The articles' talk pages as well as the users' talk pages contain relevant comments. 07:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Bushism#Explanations of Bushisms - Request for comment - Do the explanations of the Bushisms in this article add to it or simply clutter the article? -FunnyMan 03:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Serbian language – A single user is passionately arguing against conforming the article to standard layout and constantly reverting it without any substantial argumentation at the talk page. / 07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics, natural science and technology

Shortcut: WP:RFC/MATH or WP:RFC/SCI or WP:RFC/TECH

Requests for comment on Mathematics, natural science, and technology Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about. Provide a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page. Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~. Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

Place requests within the appropriate section by subject, at the top of the section.

[edit] Biology and related

• Talk:Intelligent design#Request for comment: lead NPOV dispute over first part of first sentence "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,". Disputers charge that the article's lead sentence asserts, as a matter of fact, that the identity of intelligent designer is God, whereas this point is disputed as ID itself does not define who the designer is. The current language reflects a prior decision to replace "teleological argument" with "argument for the existence of God." Please note confusion over different definitions of "teleological" and "teleological argument." 09:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Glyconutrient#Request_for_Comment: Latest revisions to Glyconutrient - Please help determine whether the latest set of revisions improve the accuracy and direction of the article as compared to the previous version. Should the article remain in its new form, be reverted, some portion of the old version moved to the new version, or some portion of the new article moved to the old version? 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Self-incompatibility in plants#Should We Split This Article? Following a discussion in the Hebrew Wikipedia about whether or not each species should have its own article, the subject of the self-incompatibility article has also risen. Someone claims that this article should be split - as it relates to different mechanisms which are evolutionarily independent. One of the disadvantages of the current (merged) format, is that the S locus, described for different mechanisms in parallel, can be mistakenly conceived to consist of a single locus for all mechanisms. Do you think this article should be split? I don't. 20:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Fetus#Request_for_Comment:_Will_This_Article_Be_the_Main_Article_for_Fetal_Development.3F. This RfC involves the question of where information about fetal development should be presented. Should it be presented in the fetus article and then be summarized in the prenatal development article? Or the reverse? Until this question is settled, writing the fetus article will continue to be a nightmare. Thanks! 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Fetus#Request_for_Comment:_Reversion_of_Photo. This RfC involves an image here that a user named Severa has repeatedly reverted. This is the first time that I have initiated an RfC (though I previously joined an RfC initiated by someone else). 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Fetus I have attempted to put a {{neutrality}} tag on this article due the POV edits by one user Ferrylodge who continues to use this page (and others) to further his positions on abortion. I original removed a non-point of view edit, to have it reverted by the individual. Rather that engage in an edit war, I left the page alone for awhile, and then put the tag on the page, after seeing this individual continue in the same vein with other editors. The user removed it, saying I didn't explain why it was there (I felt the multiple existing discussions between this individual and others on the talk page was adequate). I replaced the tag, giving a full explaination on the talk page. He removed it again, claiming I didn't "clearly and exactly explain" what I had issue with. I would like opinion as to whether the neutrality tag is appropriate. 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clinical and medical topics

• Talk:Food and Drug Administration: WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, SPA concerns. Also does Criticism of the FDA merit a separate article? 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Stephen Barrett#Request for comment: Board certification - Disagreement over whether Barrett's board-certification status is relevant or notable enough to include in his article. 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Hijama This is a form of bloodletting apparently common in the Middle-East, but obviously not accepted by Western medicine. The article does not reflect this; it is written by someone who obviously believes in its efficacy. Please help! 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• BDORT. BLP, POV and OR concerns; subject of ArbCom ruling. 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Abortion#Request_for_Comments:_May_POV_of_Footnoted_Authors_Be_Mentioned.3F I hope it's appropriate to separate this RfC from the other one immediately below. This RfC involves subsections of the "Abortion" article which summarize main articles. The subsections cite various sources, many of which have POV issues that are described in the main articles. When I tried to insert the POV info into the "Abortion" article, others objected that the POV of the footnoted sources should not be mentioned. Thanks for any help with this. 02:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Abortion#Request_for_Comments:_Have_Reverts_Been_Made_Without_Explanation.3F An editor has reverted numerous edits, but refuses to provide any reasons for those reverts, beyond saying that the edits require consensus. No reason is given why the editor thinks that the edits do not warrant consensus. The pertinent Wikipedia guideline is here. 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Exercise physiology#Request_for_Comment This page has become an advertisement for the American Society of Exercise Physiology (ASEP). All attempts at moderation and neutral point of view have been thwarted by members of ASEP. Help is appreciated. 11:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Request_for_Comment Is there sufficient evidence to state that ADHD is neurological in nature? If so, how much weight should it be given compared to other views? Will require a literature review. 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics

Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

[edit] Physical science

Physics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

Chemistry RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

[edit] Technology and engineering

• Talk:Swiftfox#Request for Comment: restricting articles to latest version number Please comment on exclusively restricting software articles to the latest version number. 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:NTFS#Request for Comment: NTFS acronym This is a dispute about the meaning of NTFS. Is it (a) "Native Transactional File System" or (b) "NT File System"/"New Technology File System"? 00:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:C++#appropriateness of external link - Please comment about appropriateness of an external link to a list of C++ related resources. 05:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Brake fade Contention lies between an explanation of drum brake failure caused by heat deformation of drums and gas bearing generated from brake material as opposed to loss of servo effect from change in friction coefficient. De facto evidence exists in the use of disk brakes today that have no servo and no total fade at high tmperatures. 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fringe science

• Talk:Psychic#"Purported" Basically the dispute is whether "psychic" should be defined as someone with purported paranormal powers, or simply as someone with those powers (with mention later in the article that there is dispute that psychics exist ). 15:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Art, architecture, literature and media

Shortcut: WP:RFC/ART

Requests for comment on Art, architecture, literature and media Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about. Provide a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page. Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~. Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

• Talk:Vote for the Worst - Should Vote for the Worst be considered a practical joke and included in the practical joke category?--Isotope23 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Stoopid Monkey‎ - Dispute over inclusion of a long (42-item) and unreferenced list of logos for a TV production company. Article currently protected, but one side has made no attempt to deal with concerns. 05:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Deadhead#Please remove the section Celebrity Heads - IP users continue to remove the sourced inclusions of Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, etc. due to them "not being part of the counter culture" that the Dead stood for. I have since tailored the section heading to perhaps appease the worried parties, shown here. 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Be_aware_of_WP:SPS - users are edit warring to try to include their blogs as sources despite WP:SPS. --Tjsynkral 18:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:From Genesis to Revelation#Request for Comment: From Genesis to Revelation - relisting due to still-active dispute. Question on whether a particular re-release of an album, with additional material not present on previous releases, is notable enough to include track listing of the re-release in the album's article. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Shock site#Article RFC - whether to include shock sites in the list of examples without reliable sources. 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows#Request for Comment: Inclusion of published theories concerning what "Deathly Hallows" are – whether to include published theories about the final book in the Harry Potter series, to be published in 4 months. 05:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List of Pokémon (1-20) - A merger has been lengthily discussed at the relevant project regarding the large number of species aticles. 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:McCoy (pottery) - A dispute over external links included in the external links section of the article. 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:WWE Raw - A dispute over whether to apply MoS:TM and the results of a RM discussion to the entire article or only part of it. 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Par Avion - There is a dispute over whether it should be up to Wikipedia editors to decide if events in Lost (TV series) are "errors" because they depict occurances that may be at odds with real-life. 23:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Cults_and_new_religious_movements_in_literature_and_popular_culture#RFC_Summary - A dispute about the appropriateness of the inclusion of literary works of Mark Twain, Willa Cather, Wilhelm Reich, Ayn Rand, and Fred Newman in this article. 20:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Dante's_Cove#Request_for_Comment:_Language - Should one part of the article Dante's Cove read "bugger" or "have sex with" 18:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Request_for_Comment:_Rumors - If editors write about rumors on a topic in a manner that complies with WP:ATT, WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, on what basis can it be excluded from the article? 22:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Surrealism - Merge Surrealism, History of surrealism and Surrealism in the arts? 18:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:The Bridge (film) - Should a screenshot from the film The Bridge (film) be used to depict the dedication at the end of the film? 06:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
• Talk:The_Satanic_Scriptures#Request_for_Comment:_Does_Book_meet_.5B.5BWP:BK.5D.5D_standards_for_inclusion_in_wikipedia - Would like comment on the notability of the book per guidelines in WP:BK to resolve on going dispute. -- 128.138.82.195 19:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Old_Farmer's_Almanac#RFC:_Employee-Suggested_Edits - Employee seeks review of external "white paper" for potential publication on Wiki. 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Image development (visual arts)- This is a debate about none of the statements in this article being attributable to a reliable source. 19:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:The Bridge (film) - Should an external link to watch the film The Bridge (film) be allowed, in the External Link section of the article? 17:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
• Talk:Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? Heated discussion with ad hominem arguments, reversions, and the like. Spills into Pop art, John McHale (artist) and Richard Hamilton (artist). Assertions are made that McHale created the piece directing Hamilton. Whether the published sources of the assertion are citeable on wikipedia is uncertain. Historical sources attribute the creation to Hamilton. 04:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Egyptian_pyramids#See_Also This debate concerns both a list of other pyramids included in this, and other pyramid articles. The list includes two articles which include pyramid in their name, but which -in fact- are not pyramids. A compromise has been suggested, and would benefit from some additional input. Both "see also" sections of the talk page are part of the debate. 17:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Knight-errant#Request for comment This is a dispute about whether information about Chinese Youxia belongs on the "Knight-errant" page as opposed to a new page of its own. 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny#Request for Comment Should this article contain a detailed analysis of all the "fighters" in the cartoon and other trivia? Should the article instead just be a redirect to Neil Cicierega#The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny? 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Swan_maiden#Request for comment This is a dispute about whether it is proper to describe the term "swan may" or "swanmay" as occurring in fantasy fiction and Dungeons and Dragons. 02:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:TNA Impact! A debate on whether MoS:TM applies to the name of this TV show. (TNA iMPACT!) 02:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Barenaked Ladies Are Men#Request for Comment: Barenaked Ladies Are Men There is currently a debate as to whether or not the release Barenaked Ladies Are Men should have an article separate from Barenaked Ladies Are Me 06:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:At Last — one user continues to add a non-notable subsection to this article after consensus had been reached. Volatile 03:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Fleet_captain_(Star_Trek)#RfC - content addition/erasure between two editors over notability and citation. 15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Academy Awards article has a thought of the academy forbidding the sale of the trophies, who endoreses this embargo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Technodrome's Toilet (talk • contribs) 12:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Politics

Shortcut: WP:RFC/P WP:RFC/POLITICS

Requests for comment on Politics Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about. Provide a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page. Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~. Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

• Talk:Northern_Ireland#Request_for_Comment:Infobox There is a dispute about whether or not the infobox should contain a flag16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:David Cameron#Tim Rathbone: Should a mention of David Cameron's three months working for Tim Rathbone in 1985 be part of the lead section? 10:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List of historical national capitals Whether or not to include national flags in teh article, and if so, whether those flags should represent the present nation that city resides in, or the historical nation the city was capital of. 04:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Drudge Report#RfC: ABC claim Primary question: Is this reliable secondary source making the charactarization or drawing the conclusion that "the Drudge Report sets the tone for national political coverage", or is it an interview/book review that only reports the charactarizations of other parties? Secondary question: If the conclusion is being drawn or charactarization made, can that conclusion be appropriately attributed to ABC News, when authorship of the source is not disclosed (no byline), or is an additional reliable secondary source required to make that attribution? - 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Zombietime#Ref_.232_is_OR Is claiming that the Santa Cruz Sentinal article is referring to Zombie's (only) photo of an antisemetic sign Original Research ? Is claiming that a copyrighted but unsourced pic on an antisemtic conference site, which might be Zombie's, as being Zombie's pic Original Research? (see discussion) 21:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Timeline of United States diplomatic history Should this article have inline citations and footnotes or are they not applicable to the article? An editor thinks they are not applicable to the article. Does the US National Archive meet WP:V and WP:RS? Should the article detail the United States embargo against Cuba and similar episodes, or is that POV? 07:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:National_Union_of_General_Workers#Request_for_Comment_-_Use_of_anonymous_sources_in_reliable_publications This is a dispute about the inclusion of an anonymous article published by a reliable magazine, which is critical of the Union 06:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:American Enterprise Institute#POV problem Is AEI's rebuttal to accusations made by the Guardian fairly characterized? 02:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle#WP:OR and WP:NPOV violation and Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle#The way forward - What's the best way to avoid WP:SYN problems? Is it appropriate for two editors to remove tags from an article when there is a lack of consensus? 16:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle#Poor Grammar - What's the best NPOV way to handle the lead about a controversial documentary concerning contentious scientific topics? 20:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#New_Title_part_Deux_-_Request_for_Comment Want to remove POV terms in the title to stop debates over how to frame the article. PRevents edit wars and POV forks and other problems. 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Christian_right#The_term_.22Christian_Right.22 -- How much weight to give to those who claim the term itself is perjorative; and there is a disagreement over what consitutes Original Research, and what is needed in terms of cites.15:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Black_supremacy#RFC:_Kwame_Kilpatrick_quote -- Does Kwame Kilpatrick's statement on the eternal need for affirmative action belong in an article about black supremacy? 11:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Israel Shahak#"Defamatory slanders" -- Should a section on "Use by Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers" be included in the article? Is undue weight given in the article to criticisms of Shahak? 10:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Nazism#Request_for_Comment:_Nazism.2C_Fascism.2C_Socialism.2C_Collectivism -- Are National Socialism, Nazism, and Fascism forms of "collectivism" and thus related to all forms of socialism? This dispute has gone on for over two years. 12:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Rebuttable Presumption -- Should it be consolidated with articles on other kinds of presumption? --Jon Roland 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Conclusive Presumption -- Should it be consolidated with articles on other kinds of presumption? --Jon Roland 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Presumption of innocence -- Should it be consolidated with articles on other kinds of presumption? --Jon Roland 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:1996 United States campaign finance controversy -- Dispute regarding whether info offering historical context in an FA should remain. 01:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Constitution -- Is a newly-added section "Principles of constitutional design" POV? 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Is this new and amended article appropriate? Note, a non-neutral RFC, admiteed by third party at the time, was filed last year by a disruptive editor which resulted in merge yet the current version is not identical and has new sources. Talk:Zarqawi PSYOP program#RFC 2007 17:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Ralph_Nader#Request_for_Comment - a Dispute over whether a given quote is appropriate for the lead of the article. 20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List of Hindu nationalist parties#is tamilcanadian.com a reliable source? — The smaller dispute is whether or not tamilcanadian.com may be used as a reliable source. The larger dispute is whether the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are a Hindu nationalist party. 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports - Is there a POV problem with listing groups referred to as cults in government reports, in the article: List of groups referred to as cults in government reports? 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
• Talk:Potential_for_Terrorism_in_Kazakhstan- At least three editors involved in a prolonged dispute on WP:NPOV and WP:AD status of the entire article. Help needed!17:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche#John_Train_Salon - if a conspiracy theory of LaRouche is described in the article, and it involves prominent living individuals, is this a violation of WP:BLP? 15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#Request_for_Comment:_Palestinian_indigeneity Despite mutliple, credible sources provided that are in line with criteria elucidated at that page, and with Wikipedia policy in general, multiple editors are reverting inclusion of Palestinians into the List of indigenous peoples. Sources provided have included UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples reports that cite Palestinians as participants, and academic sources from comparative DNA studies to sociological studies, both by Israeli authors. The counter-arguments focus around the political bias of the UN and the characterizing of the sources provided as "dubious". Please come check it out. 03:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress#Rfc - are recent changes to the article helpful and do they adhere to NPOV? Which of two versions of the article is preferable? 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Zombietime is a photoblog by an anonymous male, female, or transgendered person in San Fransisco who fanatically conceals their identity, and even sex. (odd, but that's their right) The hagiography article is largely OR and POV, and is mostly written by someone so enamored with Zombietime that his/her username is Zombiefan. What sourcing it does have largely comes from non-inclusionable blogs. I would edit it but the fact that an editor who I was falsely charged with Wikistalking has edited there. This article needs major work. Bring your pruning shears ;-)- 11:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• It has become apparant that after a couple of weeks User:Ishu and User:HongQiGong never intend on evaluating my 50 citations they have removed on the Asian American article. Their stated reason for removing them was that they felt I added too many citations in too short a period. Other than there not existing a Wikipedia Policy even remotely connected with this reasoning, it doesn't make sense. Are citations no good when they have been added too quickly? Does the slowness in the addition of citations make the citations more credible? User:Ishu claims that s/he will evaluate each citation edit-by-edit to determine if they warrant inclusion in this article which sounds as if s/he believes s/he is the sole self-appointed owner of the article. It has been two weeks and they have not personally evaluated my citations from peer-reviewed sociological sources. Will these citations ever be evaluated? For outside observors, here is the article as it were before the 50 citations were removed. My citations were from credible Asian American sociological books I rented from the library, so they were not removing the citations based on a lack of credibiility. Here is the article as User:Ishu and User:HongQiGong would like it to be [5] which comprises their own opinions on issues. They are flagrantly disregarding the WP:CITE policy with their discussions on the talk page. Many of their discussions boil down to having this article reflect their own opinions on issues without the use of citations. -- 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Democracy article seems to have two editors who have difficulty with discussions of the mechanisms of voting and the mechanisms of representation, specifically with the "majority votes/limited votes" issue and the "voter-representative disconnect" issue. Progress on this issue has been virtually impossible on the Talk:Democracy page. Also, noting no response to the issue of poor article organization raised on the same page. This article requires much more attention and discussion for improvement from the larger Politics Wiki community. -- 16:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sam Brownback There are only really two main editors at this page for a 2008 US presidential candidate, myself and Getaway. We are having difficulty restructuring the article to seperate bio from senate career, as well as dealing with whether or not Brownback's itslef campaigning should be included on the page. 15:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Current international crisis with Iran#Debate about the name of the article (following request for comments) - a current event article regarding Iran named initially "Iran international crisis" has been renamed as "Current international dispute with Iran" by some editors, on the ground that naming it International crisis is biased against Iran. Others argue that the Iran situation follows the definition of an International crisis: "a sequence of interactions between the governments of two or more sovereign states in severe conflict, short of actual war, but involving the perception of a dangerously high probability of war." 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Anne Milton - should we give the location of the blog which is referred to in this article. 09:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)~

• Talk:Baron_&_Budd_Script_Memo_controversy. I've created a new article to address concerns of undue weight in the Fred Baron article of a notable event. I've tried to keep it NPOV, but would appreciate a neutral set of eyes to double-check it for NPOV. 00:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Class_Action_Fairness_Act_of_2005 POV and accuracy problems created by editor's retaliatory reversion. 15:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:List of protest marches on Washington, D.C.#Reporting bias. Should the March for Life be listed once on the first occurrance and an indication made that it is a regularly occurring annual event, or should each individual occurrance be listed? 08:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and philosophy

Shortcut: WP:RFC/REL WP:RFC/PHIL

Requests for comment on Religion and philosophy Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about. Provide a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page. Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~. Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

• Talk:Ethic_of_reciprocity#Request_for_Comment:_Golden.2FSilver_Rules_Distinction Do we need to distinguish between Golden Rule and Silver Rule. Disputers disagree whether such a distinction puts religions touting Golden Rule over religions touting Silver Rule.17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Intelligent design#Request for comment: lead NPOV dispute over first part of first sentence "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,". Disputers charge that the article's lead sentence asserts, as a matter of fact, that the identity of intelligent designer is God, whereas this point is disputed as ID itself does not define who the designer is. The current language reflects a prior decision to replace "teleological argument" with the equivalent sentence "argument for the existence of God". Please note confusion over different definitions of "teleological" and "teleological argument" 01:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Islam and children#Request for comment: Slavery See this edit. [6]. The editor there has said that the source on slavery (Levy) is not referring to children. 18:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Neocatechumenal Way#Request for comment: Criticism Dispute is over the question whether criticism belongs into an article on the Neocatechumenal Way, a highly controversial religious movement within the Catholic church. 16:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Sternberg_peer_review_controversy#Smithsonian_controversy Dispute is over word usage (comment vs allege) and relevance of details which may or may not be given undue weight 06:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Cults_and_new_religious_movements_in_literature_and_popular_culture#RFC_Summary - A dispute about the appropriateness of the inclusion of literary works of Mark Twain, Willa Cather, Wilhelm Reich, Ayn Rand, and Fred Newman in this article. 20:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Request_for_Comment:_venganza.org This dispute is about whether venganza.org can be used as a Reliable Source to describe the Flying Spaghetti Monster and other items related to the parody religion.00:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Template talk:ScientologySeries -- Is an image of a Volcano an appropriate image for the Template:ScientologySeries? 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
• Purgatory A coeditor, User:Jonathan Tweet, has expressed the view that this article is inviolation of NPOV policy on certain grounds. At present, we are the only two editors working on the project and, since we disagree, outside opinion is needed. He has requested support on the talk pages of two other editors (see User talk:Andrew c and User talk:Miguel de Servet) but neither have responded to his requests. He has not produced a complete summary of his objections, so my presentation of the dispute represents only my interpretation of his position. On the user talk pages mentioned, he described my edits to the page such that it has "recently been overhauled to promote the Catholic POV". From what I gather, his position is as follows. He does not think that Gerald O'Collins is a reliable source. He would like a section dedicated to presenting a biblical position on the doctrine (as a matter of "standard format" and "reader interest"). The Greek Orthodox position has been unfairly presented because the differences between it and the Roman Catholic Church are not expressed to his satisfaction. Lastly, He objects to the way another source, a text of A. Harnack, has been used. My position is that his objections have been incorporated into a revised version of the article and as it stands I am unable to discern grounds for POV concerns. My goal is to see the article properly sourced and otherwise in accord with all policies such that it may attain "good article" status, and I would welcome outside criticisms and suggestions for improvement. 21:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc There is debate elsewhere on the web as to whether this church is a cult. This church is one of the most discussed groups on Factnet.org, a counter-cult message board. The question is whether sources are available to at least mention that there is controversy surrounding the church, or to nominate the article for deletion due to non-notability. 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Jean_Baudrillard Comments requested to establish if modifications/allegations made by user Abou Didee #1 constitute libel against user Europeangraduateschool and the institution European Graduate School #2 violate WP:Point #3 should be kept as part of the current/ active Discussion page or deleted and kept on file as part of the Discussion history. Disputing parties have contributed their perspectives on the Talk page in question and their own user talk pages. 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:International_Sahaja_Public_School#Request_for_comment Comments needed to establish concensus on the validity of claims ade by a news artile. Sfacets 01:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Yasuhiko Kimura#Request for comment -- notability? — need input on whether this person is notable (in the sense of WP:N).

• Talk:Frank R. Wallace#Request for Comment: acceptable sources — would like community input on whether certain books which are (to the best of my knowledge) non-peer-reviewed and written by non-authorities on the relevant subjects are acceptable as sources for this article. 07:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Waldorf education#Request for Comment - need input on if the article has improved or not. In particular whether it is still unbalanced with respect to NPOV, written in a brochure style or deals with controversies in an inappropriate manner. Thanks in advance. 17:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Antisemitism#For_RfC-over inclusion of a quote and what it means. --Aminz 04:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• talk:Techniques of Knowledge Do descriptions by religious scholars of a certain meditation technique in an article about that meditation technique violate WP:NOT for being an instruction manual? 14:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)~

• Talk:Starwood Festival#Request for Comment: Merging WinterStar and A.C.E. articles into Starwood article Should the Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration and WinterStar Symposium articles be merged into one? A.C.E. is the organization that runs the Starwood and WinterStar festivals. 04:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Anatta Debate over whether anatta means no soul or things referring not being the soul. Could use a more balanced article.
• Talk:The God Who Wasn't There Should this be categorised as a "propoganda film"? Controversial certainly but one religious editor keeps reverting two others who disagree. As there a so few of us other input and views are sought. 08:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Society and law

Shortcut: WP:RFC/SOC

Requests for comment on Society, law, and sex Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about. Provide a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page. Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~. Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

• Talk:Circumcision#Draft passage on forced circumcisions: Should information about forced circumcisions be added to the article? 15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Islamic military jurisprudence Is it necessary to cite actual judicial decisions and precedent when citing topics in this article? [7] 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Request_for_Comments:_Length.2C_Neutrality.2C_Attribution Does the article have appropriate length, neutrality and attribution? 18:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Racism by country#Iran II - Is concluding that discrimination based on ethnicity is a kind of racism original research? Are the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International and the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights reliable sources? There may be more ... 13:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Learning organization -- Edit-war problem: Is this edit appropriate? See also User_talk:Stevenson-Perez#Your_contributions. 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Rebuttable Presumption -- Should it be consolidated with articles on other kinds of presumption? --Jon Roland 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Conclusive Presumption -- Should it be consolidated with articles on other kinds of presumption? --Jon Roland 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Presumption of innocence -- Should it be consolidated with articles on other kinds of presumption? --Jon Roland 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Dispute whether the Mustafa Hefny Picture added in the U.S. subsection of the White People article should be removed. 16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Is this new and amended version of the article appropriate on its own? Please comment here.18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Constitution -- Is a newly-added section "Principles of constitutional design" POV? 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Pornography_addiction#Dobson, "opponents" out -- Is James Dobson a reliable source or an extremist source? Is this article NPOV? 15:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Norouz#Merge_2 Should the Kurdish celebration of Norouz be merged into Norouz or should it exist in summary style. 20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Waldorf education#Request for Comment - need input on if the article has improved or not. In particular whether it is still unbalanced with respect to NPOV, written in a brochure style or deals with controversies in an inappropriate manner. Thanks in advance. 17:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Great Neck South High School. Dispute over whether it is appropriate to state that all students "have at least average ability". 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Islamophobia. Edit warring by editors who evidently believe that there really is no such thing as Islamphobia, and the Muslims have only themselves to blame. 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Stillwater Area High School. One editor isnists on adding long sections of exhaustive detail concerning the performance of the school's sports teams. 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress#Rfc - are recent changes to the article helpful and do they adhere to NPOV? Which of two versions of the article is preferable? 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Wikiarc Every time I create that page it is wiped out in seconds or few minutes. Please help! --Rasmus Paludan 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style issues

Shortcut: WP:RFC/STYLE

Requests for comment on Style, reference, layout and projects Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about. Provide a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page. Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~. Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

• Should external links be inside Template:Infobox Television? See WT:TV#Infobox Television Links. -- 18:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Proposed changes in the tone of the project page It has been proposed that this statement be deleted from the project page on the grounds that it violates Assume Good Faith: spammers love to take advantage of the fact that Wikipedians assume good faith, luring us into discussing their links with them "on the merits" as if they had nothing but the good of Wikipedia at heart. Other wording on the project page has also been proposed for review (without specific suggestions made on it) on the grounds that they may suggest violations of WP:CIV. Some general support for making changes has been made, but no clear consensus has formed and the discussion is becoming dormant.Noroton 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Template talk:Skins: There is a dispute over whether this template, which is a navigational box, should use the navbox class or its own unique font sizes and colours. A vote was started on the talk page and four editors, already involved in the original dispute, "voted" unanimously to use the unique colours despite it not addressing other editors' concerns, which at the time had not been discussed. 09:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Chinese New Year What is the general policy on archiving or deleting discussions off the talk page? One user unilaterally deleted many of the historic yet relevant discussions. I have already suggested archiving instead, but the discussions were deleted again most recently. --Kvasir 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Template:Ifd I would like to modify this template to look more like the afd template. I added an {{editprotected}} template, but the admin felt that I needed a concensus before the edit is made. So I am here requesting some comments to the new template. 24fan24 (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Jonty Rhodes article and image position. (edits by Paul Venter)

Paul Venter seems to take an issue with positioning of the Image:Jonty_rhodes02.jpg and insists it should not be placed in the infobox since this is simply convention and does not neccessarily need to be followed. There has been a discussion in the talk page, and every one except Paul agrees it should go in the infobox, but he keeps reverting this. This might soon descend into a revert war. Common sense and aesthetics suggests it should go in the infobox. Any comments? Rueben lys 15:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Cities in the UTC timezone: This is a category that add some benefits in searching for cities. Should we add the ability to categorize cities by their province, by their country to the via the template {{template:infobox city}}. Similarly, should we have the UTC categorization done via the template? A clear concensus should be made to avoid conflicts in editing and nominations for deletions or category for discussion (as what is currently happening). CyclePat 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Is it effective or not? Many of the sections created are archived without any admin response. Are frivolous reports not worth responding? Should admins at lease acknowledge that they have read the report and give a brief summary why no action is required? Any other suggestions to make it better? See: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_Comment 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines Request for Comment regarding the application of a wikiproject style template to the Singapore Airlines article, with impact upon the wider application of such concensus-built templates. Comment from the wider community would be much appreciated.05:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Template talk:Infobox actor#Height - Whether the infobox about actors should include their height or not. One editor claimed that there were not enough participants in the discussion to form any kind of consensus. 16:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Autoroute There is disagreement as to the appropriate national variety of English to use on the page Autoroute. One editor contends that, because the article was begun in British English, it should stay that way. The other contends that the subject of the article bears a strong relation to Canada and that Canadian English should therefore be preferred. 13:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policies, guidelines and proposals

Shortcut: WP:RFC/POLICIES

This page is to request comment on policy or guideline topics. That applies both to disputes about any current policy or guideline, and any new proposals or amendments to those. Further, policy matters are also discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

Requests for comment on Policy, guideline, and proposal issues Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about. Provide a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page. Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~. Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

• Reference Desk Talk Page There is a major dispute going on there. People are deleting things written by other users, there are edit wars, people are telling other people to leave Wikipedia and people are starting to leave Wikipedia. Some people are even going away to Wikiversity. Please, comment there! It's a dispute about what is the Reference Desk and how the Wikipedia pillars apply to the Reference Desk. A.Z. 16:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Privacy proposals. Should the proposals Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy, Wikipedia:Youth protection, and Wikipedia:Privacy be marked as {{rejected}}? Please comment here. 11:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Image:FBISeal.png According to the United States Code, Title 18, Section 709, (and this does apply; Wikipedia's servers are in the US state of Florida) unauthorized use of the FBI seal, the words “Federal Bureau of Investigation,” the initials “FBI,” or any imitation “in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such [activity]...is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation” is prohibited. Especially on the template Template:User FBI (which you'll have to look at a past version of) this is conveyed. 00:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Scope: Requesting commentary about ensuring that information in articles remains within the scope of the article content. --Wasted Sapience 12:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Disambiguation: I cut down the list of Ohio townships on Franklin Township to just a link to Franklin Township, Ohio, thinking to make the page less cluttered and easier to use somewhat as a directory. Another editor disagreed, saying "is there a point to forcing readers to go to a second disambiguation page?" I don't know the proper policy on this. Would there please be somewhat of discussion on the Franklin Township talk page? 13:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK_stations)#Request for Comment: Is this a policy a proposal or already policy?. Is policy formed when consensus is reached or when the majority of the relevant articles have been moved to conform to the policy? 03:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• User:Jayron32/Guide to reviewing Good Articles. A draft proposal for more extensive guidance to editors wishing to review Good Articles candidates. Please make any changes as you see fit, and leave any comments you have on the talk page. I propose a goal of having the draft finalized within 2 weeks from today (by April 13) and moved to the GA project by that date. Thank you all for your attention to this. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Use of international wheelchair symbol — debate over acceptable use of the International Symbol of Access. 05:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Chemical compounds: Wikipedia has hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on chemical compounds, generally found in the many subcategories of Category:Chemical compounds by element. Unfortunately, many of these are permanent stubs and low on content, such as those listed here. Wikipedia:Chemical compounds has been created to discuss what to do with all this. Deletion is arguably a waste, but perhaps some articles can be combined into lists for greater comprehensiveness. Please join the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Chemical compounds. 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Unprotection of WP:RS (and perhaps others): Page was protected along with WP:ATT on the basis of "stability" which is not a recognized reason for page protection at WP:PROT; a later reason that editwarring is immiment was brought up to preserve the protection, but there is no actual evidence of editwarring; rather, there is broad consensus to restore material that was deleted without consensus before the protection - even the person who reverted that restoration immediately before the block agrees with the consensus and said they did the revert for the "stability" rationale. Others, at both WP:RS talk and in a related, larger thread at WP:ATT talk, challege the blocks as unilateral (cf. Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#PLEASE - NO CHANGES RIGHT NOW), without consensus and against policy and process, and that disputes about the future of WP:ATT have nothing to do with whether the policies and guidelines that were melded to create WP:ATT, and which have been restored to active status, need to be protected from editing. Probably due to concerns about corewarring, WP:RFPP have been reluctant to get involved. The issues raised also extend to the protection of WP:V and WP:NOR. So, broader community input is sought on whether any of these page protections should remain, and whether WP:RS in particular should be unprotected immediately. 03:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Update: The protection is also thwarting application of the proper merge tags to the various original policy pages, as discussed at WP:ATT talk and at at WP:RS talk. 18:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• {{Disputedpolicy}} on WP:ATT. Some parties to the debates relating to WP:ATT (which is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Attribution, Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Poll and Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion among probable other places) believe that the {{Disputedpolicy}} tag should be placed on WP:ATT because of its disputed status as a policy (which is what the template is for, not for disputes over what a policy happens to say about something). Proponents of WP:ATT of course reject this idea. The result is a deadlock that cannot possibly reach consensus internally, and needs further community input. — 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Update: After discussion, the template was added. A party to the disputes then immediately reverted it, with a rationale that actually has nothing to do with the template in question. WP:RFPP has been asked to restore it. 03:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Update: Another party has independently pointed out that ATT needs this template. 18:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Protection of WP:ATT without {{Protected}} tag. Short version: Article was protected pending outcome of a poll. Req. made at WP:RFPP to tag the article with {{Protected}}, which is not only normal but highly appropriate in this case because WP:ATT is heavily disputed as to its status and as to its particulars (and {{Protected}} specifically references dispute as the defensible rationale for the protection under WP:PROT). An RFPP admin responded by doing the requested tagging. A party to the disputes at WP:ATT removed the tag. RFPP admin replaced it, dispute participant removed it again, and replaced it with a POV statement of the situation that is strongly disagreed with by other parties to the debates. Should the {{Protected}} tag be restored, and debate partcipants reminded to leave the article alone while it is protected, since the purpose of page protection is not to create an admins-only editing environment? The relevant RFPP material is here — 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Update: The {{Protected}} tag was put back on this one (for the third time). 01:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) A proposal for the naming of stations in the UK. 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) This page is a result of a merger of WP:ORG and WP:CORP. There is disagreement over the resolution of the wording of the former Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), and the issue of "notabilty" for non-commercial organizations. 23:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing Should the guideline stipulate that community bans be decided by a consensus of uninvolved or impartial editors? 14:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• User:Clarityfiend/Bus route notability A proposal to get rid of the thousands of articles describing bus routes. They're not what one expects to see in an encyclopedia, and there's already a policy against train and subway routes. 02:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism: Proposal to redefine the present convention of not blocking persistent vandals who space out their disruptive edits in order to evade blocks by taking advantage of the requirement that "the vandal [must be] active now". 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Historical images A proposal to change fair use policy wording to more specifically allow fair use historical images (such as logos) which provide visual historical information about the subject of an article. DHowell 05:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Credential ban A propsal to disallow the use of most credentials on Wikipedia. 23:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Paid editing One possible solution (of many) to the question of paid editing. Inspired by the discussion on wikien-l. William Pietri 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• User:Acalamari/IWN‎ Proposal involving the creation of a new noticeboard. Acalamari 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• User:Acalamari/Warning Removals Policy involving vandalism warnings on talk pages. Acalamari 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Two polls: Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Poll re "verifiability, not truth" versus "attributable ... not whether it is true". and Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Poll re handling of apparently false, but attributable, statements --Coppertwig 13:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Election Coverage - new ideas regarding how we handle election notability and articles. --24.16.156.223 01:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Donation appeal ideas — brainstorming how we appeal for the anon's money - Jack · talk · 12:13, Friday, 2 March 2007
• Wikipedia:Advertisements — an essay compiling all the information and arguments on the "tired out" discussion of adverts on Wikimedia - Jack · talk · 12:13, Friday, 2 March 2007
• Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Historiography.2C_nationalism_and_reliability Should the RS guideline discuss histographical/ideological bias commonly found in some sources? Obvious example: Nazi sources will be anti-semitic, and Soviet pro-Marxist. Less obvious: Western historiography, particulary from the first half of the 20th century and earlier, will have a 'Western bias'. Should we note that such sources are likely to be less reliable when discussing certain issues then modern academic work done in countries respecting free speach and academic ethics? 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia_talk:Notability (films)#RFC is this proposal rejected because consensus is unlikely? 9:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Summary of integration of news on Wikipedia, please add your thoughts on improving integration of news on Wikipedia, 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) A proposal to establish notability guidelines for journalists as the general notabilty guidelines can sometimes create problems in determining notability. 00:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• WP:Summary Style. Should guideline require new material be added to main articles before being added to summary sections? 02:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:New users is a proposal to extend restrictions on newly registered users. 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises should be official policy. This should be self-evident. Let's talk about it. 00:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Attribution, a proposal to subsume and replace Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, is ready to be implemented. Please review the document and discuss any problems on the talk page. 23:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Adminship survey, to seek feedback from editors about adminship and its processes. - 15:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User conduct

Shortcut: WP:RFC/USER WP:RFC/ADMIN

WP:RFC/U redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Request for checkuser (WP:RFCU).

This process is for discussing specific users who 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Candidate pages

These RfCs still need to meet the two-person threshold. List newer entries on top.

[edit] Approved pages

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

Martinphi

WP:DE, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:SPAM, WP:FRINGE, WP:POVFORK 22:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Mbhiii

WP:AGF WP:CIVIL WP:NPA WP:OWN 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/CineWorld

WP:BLP, WP:BIO, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:POINT, WP:USER. 07:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta

Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Edit war. 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

DorisH

WP:CIVIL, WP:VAND; Acting in an uncivil, disruptive manner by blanking large section of article and making personal attacks. 13:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Emir Arven

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:3RR, WP:VAND, WP:NOT, WP:BITE, WP:NPA, WP:CANVAS, WP:POINT, WP:ATT, WP:BLP, WP:CON. WP:DR, WP:DE; long history of incivility, disruption, extreme ethnic stereotype & prejudice canvasing 15:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

RichardBennett

WP:CIVIL, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, WP:SOCK, WP:NPA Possibly related: WP:NPOV 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann

WP:ATT, WP:ENC, WP:NOR, WP:CIV, WP:OWN. 15:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain

WP:POINT, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:DP, WP:AGF, WP:CANVAS, WP:N, WP:CIVIL, WP:CSD, WP:NPOV. 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor

WP:AGF, WP:Civility, WP:NPA, WP:POINT . 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Biophys

Unstoppable stalking, uncivilty, intimidation and harassing. WP:STALK, WP:BLP, WP:CIV 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jobstbrandt

WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:REF, WP:DE and potentially WP:CIVIL.17:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

LSLM

User:LSLM has been committing persistent personal attacks for a long time, along with other disruptive behaviour such as violation of 3RR rule and vandalism. 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov

Persistent WP:STALK violations 14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also WP:BLP and WP:CIV violations. 21:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Evrik

Has falsely accused an editor of harassment and wikistalking, is disruptive, and refuses to accept fair use policy. 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

L0b0t

User-talk page incivility, treating content disputes as vandalism.

Abu badali

This RFC did not appear to be listed. Claims of wikistalking and deceptive and disruptive behavior. To do with listing images as Replacable Fair Use.

Vergina

Abuse of user page as a political soapbox, inflammatory username. 14:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia

Abuse of user page as a political soapbox, inflammatory username, image abuse. 13:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

KazakhPol

WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR violations 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

JJay

Abortive second go-around after failed refactoring: Issues of civility, talk page obfuscation, and providing sources. - 07:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton

Incivility, personal attacks, failure to assume good faith. 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

ForrestLane42

Incivility, personal attacks, accusations of sockpuppetry on both sides, harassment. - 18:07 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist

3RR, Sock, personal attacks, etc. concerning the political issues of naming convention with Taiwan/ROC. 02:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

BWCNY

WP:NOR, WP:CIVIL, other issues. 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Logicus

WP:DE, WP:NOR, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA 15:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Rangeley

WP:SOAP, WP:POINT, Wikipedia:Vote-stacking 11:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Darkcat21

WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NPA, and WP:3RR

[edit] 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:

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.

[edit] Candidate pages

These RfCs still need to meet the two-person threshold. List newer entries on top.

Nandesuka

Allegations: This overzealous admin has repeatedly misused his privileges in editorial conflicts to win "edit wars". He has (1) blanked comments and repeatedly without actually investigating the rules behind the comments (2) protected pages for no apparent reason other than to prevent other editors from having an opposing "voice" (3) clearly shown a history of one sided activities against editors who do not adhere to his and other like minded editors wishes (4) removed complaints and commentary from his talk page. 209.214.20.227 13:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Most recently on the Derek Smart article and talk page, he continues this pattern of behavior which others (check his archives) have consistently complained about on his talk page and elsewhere. As soon as the voices get louder, he quickly archives his page in order to "hide" immediate evidence of his behavior. Today is an exampled as you can see, just a few minutes ago after I complained on his talk page, he archived it. A few days ago, he completely removed my comments on that talk page. Even when I reported these incidents in attempt to get another neutal admin involved, he continues to try and silence me and blatantly ignoring the WP:BLP rules under which my edits were made.

This admin is one of the reasons why most editors no longer wish to register, but prefer to post as anon. Once you register, you stand a greater chance of being singled out and banned. Then when you don't register, they assume that because you are anon (though EVERYONE is in fact anon, whether you register or not) that you are being a troll, disruptive etc. This admin is an example of why Wiki takes so many hits in the eyes of the media and others because its just becoming yet another lawless frontier where a select group of people, given powers they CLEARLY SHOULD NOT HAVE are allowed to do as they please.

I know that my complain will amount to nothing, but at the very least, I've said my piece. 209.214.20.227 13:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Approved pages

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

Darwinek

Allegations: Misuse of blocking in content disputes 15:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand

Allegations: Use of WP:BLOCK and understanding of WP:U 02:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice

Allegations: This overzealous administrator has inappropriately used his privileges in editorial conflicts to win "edit wars" against an entire population of Wikipedians who, on the talk page, widely agree with said edits, most notably on the Shock Site entry. The user has blocked articles from being edited indiscriminately and inappropriately. There are many comments from other users relating to such situations on their talk page. Aftli 05:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow

Allegations: understanding of WP:BLP and application of WP:BLOCK (self nom)--Doc^g 11:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Blanning

Allegations: Abuse of DRV closure during an ongoing debate. 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User_names

Shortcut: WP:RFC/NAME WP:RFCN This page is only intended to bring attention to usernames which may be inappropriate. Before listing an issue for comment here, consider if it could be more appropriately reported elsewhere: For usernames which require urgent blocks, such as obscenity, vandal memes (e.g. Willy on Wheels) or vandalism-only accounts, post to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for a fast response. For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. For purely sockpuppet related username issues, try Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. For policy debates and suggestions regarding the username policy, try Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Proposed username blocks or unblocks are discussed; they are not ratified by some majority vote. If you give your opinion in a username discussion, you are highly encouraged to include a rationale in accordance with the username policy.

If you 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. Be aware that usernames are subject to specific criteria which differ from controls and guidelines regarding other forms of self-expression on Wikipedia. Please ensure you are familiar with the username policy before commenting on a username. This is not the place to discuss the behavior of a user unless it is directly related to their username.

• Before listing a user here, please be sure to do the following:
  • Read our username policy. Grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate usernames should be reported at WP:AIV instead. Names that are offensive, inflammatory, impersonating an existing user, or asserting inappropriate authority will generally be permanently blocked by admins. Username block requests that are denied may be listed here for discussion.
  • Contact the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Wikipedia:Changing username. Skipping this step may lead to the listing being removed on sight.
  • When contacting the user, {{subst:UsernameConcern|reason for objection}} or {{subst:uncon|reason for objection}} may be helpful, but feel free to paraphrase it or write your own original text if you prefer. Please try to assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers, if possible: allow for the possibility of innocent error or other reasonable explanation.

• If you do list a user here, please inform him or her with {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}} or {{subst:und}}.

• When closing a discussion, please do the following:
  • Add archival templates to the relevant discussion page by adding {{subst:RFCNtop|result ~~~~}} at the the top of the page and {{subst:RFCNbottom}} at the bottom of the page.
  • If the discussion is closed as allow, follow up by informing the user with {{subst:UsernameAllowed}} or {{subst:una}}.
  • Admins who impose username blocks, please detail the specific reason with {{UsernameBlocked|reason for block}} or {{unb|reason for block}} (not just "Violates WP:U", please). To use a blocking template that links to the appropriate discussion page, it is possible to use {{RFCNblocked}} which automatically adds a link to the RFCN discussion when substituted.
  • If the discussion was closed as disallow, admins should consider referencing the discussion in the block log.
  • Only admins who have not participated in the discussion should close it.

• Reviews of existing username blocks may not be made via this page; instead, discuss the issue with the blocking admin.

This page has an archive.

Tools: Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist

To request comments about a problematic username: Discussions are created on subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. To do so, add the username into the box below. Leave out the "User:" prefix. Replace only the word USERNAME, leaving the rest as is. Example: if your concern was about User:John Doe, the new discussion would be titled: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/John Doe Then click "Start a discussion". You will be taken to a page where you can fill out the request. After you've saved the request, come back to see the remaining instructions below this box. You must list your request (after it has been saved) by adding {{Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/USERNAME}} as the last entry on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names ←(click this link). Please include the username to be discussed in the edit summary.

---

[edit] See also

• Wikipedia:Current surveys