Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WP:RFC/A

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

Contents



[edit] Biographies

Shortcut:
WP:RFC/BIO
Requests for comment on Biographies
Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here
  • Do not list entries here. Instead, add an RFC template to the page you are requesting comments on, as described here.
  • Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.


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

  • Talk:Maria Alexandrovna Ulyanova Difference of opinion regarding whether or not the article should be tagged with the category "Russian Jews"
  • Talk:Alger Hiss Is the statement introduced by "some reliable sources" in the "Introduction" an appropriate Wiki statement?
  • Talk:Lizzie Borden differences in opinion regarding name identification and citation inclusion and style
  • Talk:Todd Bentley recent rewrite has been questioned as to making the article too whitewashed
  • Talk:Carl Freer Is multiply sourced content about alias and past crimes appropriate?
  • Talk:Harvey Milk Does the content in the "Peoples Temple" section violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BIO and is the materially covered sufficiently in the career section above?|
  • Talk:Neil Goldschmidt Is a 30-year-old man having sex with a 14 properly called "child abuse" or is there a better term?
  • Talk:Alan Hovhaness An editor says that a former neighbor of Hovhaness personally told the editor that Hovhaness said they moved out of Somerville to escape discrimination against Armenians. How can this interesting information be included in the article?
  • Talk:Fergie (singer) What are the genre's of music this artist covers.
  • Talk:Ingrid Newkirk A discussion over whether the name of the Wikipedian photographer's dog should be included in the caption
  • Talk:G. David Schine Repetition of information in footnotes, irrational use of 3 footnotes when none of them supports the statement they're attached to, etc.
  • Talk:William Remington Pointless repetition of information in recent edits
  • Talk:Elizabeth Bentley Repetition and trivia in recent edits
  • Talk:Rupert Sheldrake can Sheldrake works be considered to be a WP:RS beyond the limited scope of WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves?
  • Talk:Lynn Conway Recent edit wars concerning controversies about transsexual theory and activism, and inclusion of statements published by participants in those controversies, need to be sorted out with respect to BLP and article balance for when the article get unprotected.
  • Talk:Chappaquiddick incident Is included text proper given the weight of the source?
  • Talk:Bear Grylls Discussion over whether the article subject's sons' names should be included in the article.
  • Talk:Catherine Deneuve A dispute between two editors, Luke4545 (talk · contribs) and 70.108.119.24  (talk · contribs) over full-scale edits that 70.108.119.24 (talk · contribs) did not discuss prior to making them. Luke4545 (talk · contribs) disputes that these edits contained various formatting mistakes.
  • Talk:Antonio Meucci In 2002 a Congressional resolution honored Antonio Meucci. The resolution does not say, but can be interpreted as implying, that Meucci was the inventor of the telephone. It's appropriate to mention the resolution in the lead section. Editors disagree on how to describe or characterize what the resolution says.
  • Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 4 Editors having some difficulty agreeing about how to edit this article for NPOV, grammar, style, formatting, NOR, etc. Please give a look & suggest ways in which all editors can most effectively be encouraged to familiarize themselves/comply with WP editing rules and guidelines, *and* to ensure no mechanism exists to prevent/discourage other editors from complying, etc. See recent comments, above. Third-party input sincerely appreciated.
  • Talk:Bill Moyers Dispute about weight, truth and accuracy of details of subject's life (involves liason activity with the FBI on LBJ's behalf )
  • Talk:John Howard/Archive 11 Should a paragraph about an incident between Australian Prime Minister John Howard and US Presidential Candidate Barack Obama be included or deleted from the article?

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCbio| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again.
  • Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

[edit] Economy and trade

Shortcuts:
WP:RFC/ECON
WP:RFC/TRADE
WP:RFC/COMP
Requests for comment on Economy and trade
Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here
  • Do not list entries here. Instead, add an RFC template to the page you are requesting comments on, as described here.
  • Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

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

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCecon| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again.
  • Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

[edit] History and geography

Shortcuts:
WP:RFC/HIST
WP:RFC/GEOG
Requests for comment on History and geography
Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here
  • Do not list entries here. Instead, add an RFC template to the page you are requesting comments on, as described here.
  • Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

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

  • Talk:Chippawa, Ontario A disagreement exists as to the correct local name for the river flowing through Chippawa - Chippawa "Creek", or "Crick"
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard Is there enough support for alternative start dates to be considered the viewpoint of, at least, a significant minority?
  • Talk:National Liberation War of Macedonia There is a dispute about the neutrality of the article between Kobra85 and Revizionist, with admin Future Perfect at Sunrise and a few others sometimes involved in the discussion. There are basically two versions being argued for here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title
  • Talk:Contras Need support of third party to request mediation unless you can think of a way to solve reversion and disputes
  • Talk:Knights Hospitaller Should order be described as "revived." Does it "claim" sovereignty or does it have sovereignty?
  • Talk:List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957 This was a national troop type that can not be readily translated into English, with a variety of translations offered (see copious sources above). The naming in Wikipedia is based on the same principle as that used for Cossacks, Hussars and Landwehr
  • Talk:GADA 601 GADA 601 is an article about a South American military unit, the majority of the article covers a war with the British. Which form of English spelling should be used?
  • Talk:Belgrade Offensive there are several issues involved 1)that at the operation was not a combine/joint operation between the Red Army and the Yugoslav Army at the planing involving higher headquarters, but only involved front-line incidental cooperation at tactical level as required on those occasions when the troops from the two forces encountered each other; 2) That when this encounter occurred, the Yugoslav troops came under command of the Red Army (I need to provide a source for this, but English sources seem rare); 3) that the sources provided by User:DIRECTOR are valid, one being derived from a very general reference in the Library of Congress country dara entry, and others from a site the owner of which admitted they are not referenced (even if true)
  • Talk:List of military occupations The opposition to renaming this article is based on the suggestion that another article can not be created to list pre-1907 occupations due to difficulty in defining the term
  • Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz Is it appropriate to use a represntative quote by the book's author stated it's main thesis, as well as quotes from favorable book reviews, even if some editors find the POV of the book objectionable
  • Talk:Master Mahan Is the "Master Mahan — Master Mason Theory" Verifiable, keeping to Neutral Point of View, or not Original Research? Is it worthy of inclusion in the article?
  • Talk:Chetniks Deleting of WWII USHMM pictures

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFChist| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again.
  • Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

[edit] Language and linguistics

Shortcuts:
WP:RFC/LANG
WP:RFC/LING
Requests for comment on Language and linguistics
Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here
  • Do not list entries here. Instead, add an RFC template to the page you are requesting comments on, as described here.
  • 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. The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • No discussions listed

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFClang| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again.
  • Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

[edit] Mathematics, natural science and technology

Shortcuts:
WP:RFC/MATH
WP:RFC/SCI
WP:RFC/TECH
Requests for comment on Mathematics, natural science, and technology
Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here
  • Do not list entries here. Instead, add an RFC template to the page you are requesting comments on, as described here.
  • Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

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

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCsci| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again.
  • Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

[edit] Art, architecture, literature, media, culture, games

Shortcuts:
WP:RFC/ART
WP:RFC/ARCH
WP:RFC/LIT
WP:RFC/MEDIA
Requests for comment on Art, architecture, literature and media
Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here
  • Do not list entries here. Instead, add an RFC template to the page you are requesting comments on, as described here.
  • Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

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

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCmedia| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again.
  • Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

[edit] Politics

Shortcuts:
WP:RFC/P
WP:RFC/POL
WP:RFC/POLY
WP:RFC/POLITICS
Requests for comment on Politics
Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here
  • Do not list entries here. Instead, add an RFC template to the page you are requesting comments on, as described here.
  • Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

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

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCpol| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again.
  • Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

[edit] Religion and philosophy

Shortcuts:
WP:RFC/REL
WP:RFC/PHIL
Requests for comment on Religion and philosophy
Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here
  • Do not list entries here. Instead, add an RFC template to the page you are requesting comments on, as described here.
  • Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

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

  • Talk:Gender of God a quick glance at the above will demonstrate the problem
  • Talk:New Kadampa Tradition Does this article seem to read more like publicity than an NPOV encyclopedia article on a controversial topic?
  • Talk:Banu Qurayza considering what is stated above, is Tariq Ramadan a reliable source for this topic?
  • Talk:List of groups referred to as cults Requesting input from editors to assess the best of two versions proposed
  • Talk:Jihad Watch Is the category "Anti-Islam sentiment" appropriate for the article? Would an alternative category suffice? What standards should be used to judge if the article belongs in a category?
  • Talk:Master Mahan Is the "Master Mahan — Master Mason Theory" Verifiable, keeping to Neutral Point of View, or not Original Research? Is it worthy of inclusion in the article?

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCreli| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again.
  • Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

[edit] Society and law

Shortcuts:
WP:RFC/SOC
WP:RFC/LAW
WP:RFC/SEX
Requests for comment on Society, sports, law, and sex
Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here
  • Do not list entries here. Instead, add an RFC template to the page you are requesting comments on, as described here.
  • Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

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

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCsoc| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again.
  • Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

[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
  • Do not list entries here. Instead, add an RFC template to the page you are requesting comments on, as described here.
  • Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

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

  • Talk:Omega Point (Tipler) Are parentheticals such as this appropriate in the HTTP version of a predominantly hyper-reference encyclopedia?
  • Talk:Circumcision Does the WHO/CDC paragraph make Circumcision notable?
  • Template talk:Infobox DTV Issues with handling the insertion of final digital TV channel assignments for 400-500 US stations changing frequency at the end of digital transition in February 2009.
  • Template talk:Infobox Television Disability issues with using small fonts in templates. Arguments for include disability and preference for screen resolution over direct template editing.

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCstyle| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again.
  • Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.


[edit] Policies, guidelines and proposals

Shortcuts:
WP:RFC/POLICY
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
  • Do not list entries here. Instead, add an RFC template to the page you are requesting comments on, as described here.
  • Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

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

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{RFCpolicy| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}
  • Mind the exclamation marks! Do not use pipe symbols to separate the parameters.
  • Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again.
  • Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.


[edit] User conduct

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

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

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

[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] Instructions

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

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

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

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

[edit] RfC guidelines

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

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

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

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

[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)

Use this form to generate a new page:

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

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

Or use this form to generate a page:

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

[edit] Candidate pages (users)

[edit] Approved pages (users)

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

Greg L

Constant incivility, disregard for consensus, votemongering, vote stacking. 00:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Tom_davy

User edits without communication, only reverting and undo edits of others. Repeated attempts to engage in communication have been fruitless. 14:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Zeuspitar

User engage in uncivilly, disruptive editing and WP:BATTLEFIELD and continuously acting against WP:NPA and WP:NLT. 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lilith2396

Constant insults and attacks on other users.

Abtract

Edit warring, incivility, gaming the system, personal attacks

TheNautilus/I'clast

Abuse of multiple accounts. Refusal to abide by content policies and respect consensus, edit warring.

Rau J/Handlebars

Incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, refusal to engage in consensus building by the above named user.

LahoreKid

At best incivility, apparent canvassing, edit warring in articles & other users' talk pages, and other disruptive conduct, 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

69.121.221.174

Incivility, Edit warring (both in articles and on other users' talk pages) 06:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian

Incivilty/Edit Warring 14:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Disruption of Wikipedia via COI and EL violations and wikilawyering. 12:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Justinm1978

Disruption of Wikipedia via POV pushing and disregard for consensus. 13:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Femmina

Disruptive NPOV edits on iPhone. Groink (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald

Disregard for consensus, primarily regarding formatting/style. 17:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wageslave

Disruptive NPOV edits on Microsoft, PlayStation, Nintendo and Apple Inc related articles. 01:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop

Tendentious edits, incivility, refusal to assume good faith and personal attacks by SPA on John Zizioulas page, leading to page protection and breakdown of informal mediation (twice).

Bardcom

Persistent POV edits to remove geographic terminology he objects to.

Seeyou

Disregard for consensus, accusations of sockpuppetry, incivility.
Pedant17
User persists in edit warring to Friedrich Nietzsche despite consensus against his position. 08:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[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 (admins)

[edit] Approved pages (admins)

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

[edit] Use of bot privileges

This section is only for discussions specifically related to the operation of a bot. This includes the actions of unauthorized bots, bots without flags, and inter-wiki bots. It does not include the use of scripts or semi-automated tools on a user's account. If the dispute is over a bot owner's actions as an editor, it should be listed under the General user conduct section above. To list a dispute, create a subpage using the following sample as a template:

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

As with disputes over general user conduct, at least two people must certify that they believe there is a legitimate basis for the complaint. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted.

[edit] Candidate pages (bots)

[edit] Approved pages (bots)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VoABot II

[edit] User_names

Shortcuts:
WP:RFC/NAME
WP:RFCN

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

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

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

Instructions for closing administrators

This page has Archives:

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

Tools: Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist

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

[edit] Reports

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

[edit] IFLA-nls-en

The Standing Committee of IFLA’s National Libraries Section chose Wikipedia as its directory of national libraries after an internal discussion and out of eight different potential solutions. Its aim is to complete, and afterwards maintain, the List of national libraries and, occasionally or on request, its 'daughter' articles. When conceiving the project, I planned the creation of a depersonalised username that could be handed over from person to person, according to who is in charge within the section, after elections (I would use it myself for the duration of my mandate). One idea behind this choice was that the section’s representative, with its explicit username, would have some legitimacy in updating the list. On the other hand, that would also mean that the section commits itself about the accuracy of the list. Before registering, I saw in the Naming conventions that usernames explicitly referring to organisations or groups were normally not recommended. For this reason, instead of an automatic ‘create account’ procedure, I chose an assisted account creation, stating the above in the comment field and requesting there a dispensation from the ‘company/group names’ rule. The requested account was created, but without further comment, i.e. formal dispensation. Now, after two days of reading help pages, I see that sharing accounts is prohibited. The statement does not specify whether this concerns simultaneous sharing only (which I also think would be bad), or sharing over time (i.e. one single person handing over account control to another single person – which I would find acceptable as long as the user’s page documents control transmissions), a point that I think the Wikipedia:Username policy should explicit/differentiate. I feel uneasy about this and would like either a formal validation of the username I registered including its planned later use, or an advice to change that username (that I would most probably use for the purpose of this project only and definitely keep for myself).

Many thanks for your appreciation and help

See also: Talk:List of national libraries and User:IFLA-nls-en.

IFLA-nls-en (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My initial thoughts are: 1) Yes shared user names are prohibited. The reasons are too long to list but legal and accountability reasons should be evident. 2) Your user name should not be associated with the organization. Editors spend a lot of time and effort verifying facts and sources in articles. It is not feasible to verify the identity of the editors (except in some cases where real names are used). You might not work for that organization next week (or for that matter you could be a 14 yo student using that name right now). There are often problems that arise from using corp or organizational names and it is best to stay away from them. My recommendation is that you change your name to User:LibraryMan (or User:LibraryWomen) something that does not directly connect you to the organization. Just my 2 cents GtstrickyTalk or C 13:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
1) I believe the policy on shared accounts is referring to simultaneous sharing of accounts. The legal issues with sharing accounts serially/non-simultaneously I believe can be addressed, as explained in my separate comment below, and accountability is only a concern for those who use the account, as we will still block the entire account (just as we do for single-user accounts) when someone using the account is disruptive enough. For these reasons, if the username policy is actually referring to all sharing, including serial sharing, I would invoke WP:IAR in this particular case.
2)If this user restricts his/her contributions to neutral, non-promotional edits, and doesn't point to his/her relation to the organization to claim expertness or authority on a subject, I don't see a problem. Association and company names are discouraged to prevent promotion or detraction from the association or company, but they aren't prohibited if the user does neither. So I think it should be ok in this case, and if there turn out to be problems in the future then they can be dealt with at that time. -kotra (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Only one person will operate the account at a time, but that person may change at any time, correct? If I understood correctly, this account would be operated similarly to NERIC-Security, whose account is approved (and extremely helpful, I should add). I don't see any problems with this account (or, somewhat more relevant to this discussion, its name). I'd say allow, for the time being at least. · AndonicO Engage. 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'll clarify what I meant by "for the time being," since I realize it wasn't particularly well explained. I meant the username and account should be allowed, unless any problems or complications occur in the future (which I view as unlikely, but should be kept in mind as a possibility). · AndonicO Engage. 14:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In terms of legality, NERIC-Security is slightly different from the proposed username here. NERIC-Security doesn't seem to contribute any new content, just revert vandalism. So I would consider it exempt from Wikipedia's default license, the GFDL, which requires the author of the content be attributed. Since NERIC-Security isn't actually authoring content, it's exempt. IFLA-nls-en, on the other hand, would be authoring content, so those who edit under its name might need to be attributed somehow. I would suggest that each individual using the account is named on the userpage, along with what time period they used the account for. That way the author of content could be extrapolated by the edit date. This may not be important though; if those who edit under IFLA-nls-en don't care about attribution, they can bypass the whole issue by release their edits into the public domain instead (like I have done on my userpage, with Template:User_pd, or with Template:Public_domain_release -kotra (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. They are somewhat contradictory, showing that my question was worth to be asked.

To Gtstricky: I understand your points and it is actually why I put up the question in the first place. Your suggested username seems however worse to me than the initial one: there are thousands of qualified and/or competent librarians in the world and don't see why I could 'monopolize' such a username for myself. It's nearly like an ordinary Roman Catholic registering as 'ThePope'... The initial username, on the contrary, has a clear focus and would not compete with anyone else.

To AndonicO: thank you for your support; and yes, the plan is(/was) that only one person at a time would use that username and that, after my own tenure in this project, my followers would be elected by the Standing Committee, one at a time every 2-4 years. I also pledge to make the history of the account's control displayed on its user page, maybe without real names but with enough information for IFLA's authorities to trace the account's 'owner' at any time.

To –kotra: most of the above already replies to your requests and/or concerns. About promotion, it is clear that the NL section, having a limited potential membership and also a small number of members in its Standing Committee, is highly unlikely to use Wikipedia for its promotion. I'm outside of it myself but I know it mainly works through networking.

It remains that I'm sort of trying to introduce a kind of 'corporate user', cooperating to a restricted set of articles pertaining to its area of competence and over which it would claim some authority, and accept accountability too, contrary to the general philosophy where anyone may contribute to anything without any guarantee that others will accept/keep the input. I'd be happy to read general statements from some Wikipedia's caciques as well... IFLA-nls-en (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are actually intending for you or IFLA to claim authority over articles, you are correct, that is certainly against Wikipedia policy. This is explicitly described in the official policy Ownership of articles. Editing Wikipedia requires the understanding that one's contributions may be removed, reverted, etc. That said, editors often do keep articles on their watchlist and monitor them closely, reverting vandalism and making sure only improvements are made. But these editors do not own the articles or have any more authority over them than anyone else. As for 'caciques', AndonicO is an administrator, though we tend to have a decentralized structure on Wikipedia. Our ultimate authorities are the policies. -kotra (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Further comment: Wikipedia values experts, but does not make any practical distinction between editors based on their expertise. Facts must still be referenced with outside reliable sources, regardless of how knowledgeable the author is. See also WP:No original research. -kotra (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your complements. I'll abandon that username and my idea of transmitting it after the end of my involvement. Best regards IFLA-nls-en (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TimHowardII

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: Non-admin closure. Lacking further discussion, name is okay since clarification on user's page. --Ali'i 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


TimHowardII  (talk · contribs)

see below Slp1 (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to get this reason to appear in the template despite trying several times so have placed it here. Sorry. Tim Howard is the name of a US player for Everton FC and the US soccer team. This user has edited the Tim Howard page or items related to him on several occasions. e.g. some recent ones. [2],[3][4][5][6][7] In fact his first edit (in Sept 2006) was to the Tim Howard page [8]. I have twice asked him to clarify on his userpage [9] [10] that he is not Tim Howard the soccer player, per Username Policy [11] and the chance for confusion given his username and editing interests. I have had no response, though the account has edited since.[12]. I'd be glad for some feedback from other editors about what to in such situation, especially as this name includes the II. Does this make a significant difference? Slp1 (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

He has now added his real name to his userpage, so I presume that is adequate to close this? --Slp1 (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I would say so. -kotra (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] AspergersGamer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.
I closed this as allow, since there seems to be consensus. · AndonicO Engage. 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)



AspergersGamer (talk · contribs)

Was originally reported and username concerned. User gave the following reason for his username: Quite frankly i do have diagnosed aspergers, and i take pride in showing it, unlike most others that would try too hide it, and if i dont speak or dont make much sence with somthing, A : They will wiki it, B : It makes sence then. Sorry if this may break the rule's but quite frankly i'm not willing too change it. I personally find this quite a respectful reason, however other users, particularly those who may suffer from aspergers, may still find it offensive, and the username policy states that usernames that may offend are still against guidelines even if it's not intentional. Decided I would bring it here for discussion. SGGH speak! 07:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


I don't think the name would be offensive to anyone. The name doesn't make any negative claims against people with Asperger's, so I sincerely doubt anyone with Asperger's would find it offensive. But if anyone finds this name to be potentially offensive, User:Deafgeek should probably be discussed as well. -kotra (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There doesn't seem to be any malice involved here. Choose another example; if a user decided to create a name that spelled out ADHD or read "manic depressive", I don't think it would cause much disruption on Wikipedia. However, with that said, if it does (by some chance) become a problem, it can be further discussed. Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with this name at all. If the word Aspergers was combined with a disparaging word, then that would be offensive, but with "Gamer", this is fine.--BelovedFreak 11:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This name is not a breach. It does not mention the syndrome in any negative way, so there really isn't a problem with it. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No violation, in my eyes at least. Leaving up until [07:27 June 9 (UTC)] to meet criteria for closing administrators. Rudget (Help?) 11:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow. I've AS, and am not offended in the least. · AndonicO Engage. 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks okay to me. GlassCobra 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow It's really not that offensive. It just says he has Asperger's Syndrome,and he plays video games. There's really nothing wrong with it. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This one looks absolutely fine to me - Alex Muller 18:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow - no negative connotations, just descriptive, looks fine. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:37, June 8, 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow Not really disparaging, I don't think the mere mention alone is enough to be offensive. 1 != 2 19:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow I may have Asperger's but I do not find it offensive. Judging by the name, the user may be an avid video game player who has Asperger's Syndrome. Johnny Au (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow. not sufficient for block. SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] See also