Phoenix of9 (talk | contribs) →General user conduct: Passed two-person threshold. No admins seem to be looking here. |
→Approved pages (users): votestacking allegations - and an admin happens to be present for the page, non-admn approval is irregular, especially by the proposer |
||
Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
;[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect|Collect]] |
;[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect|Collect]] |
||
:[[User:Collect]] is a [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentious]] editor with a long history of [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit warring]] and [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith]]. 12:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC) |
:[[User:Collect]] is a [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentious]] editor with a long history of [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit warring]] and [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith]]. 12:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC) This case has votestacking allegations, and misses any claim of dispute efforts. 23:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
;[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani|Badagnani]] |
;[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani|Badagnani]] |
Revision as of 23:44, 16 April 2009
This process page is undergoing reform discussion on its talk page here.
This process is for discussing specific users who may have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In order to request comments on a user's actions, follow the instructions to create a subpage in the section below. Disputes over the writing of articles, including disputes over how best to follow the NPOV policy, belong in Article content disputes.
For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, a quick, simple way to get an outside view.
For feedback on your own activity at Wikipedia, you might try Wikipedia:Editor review.
To report an offensive or confusing user name in violation of Wikipedia username policy, see subpage User names.
Before using this page, you should have read the general instructions on RfCs for users. You might also want to read some suggestions on how to present an RfC case.
Uncertified user RfCs
Requests for comment which do not meet the minimum requirements 48 hours after creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed.
- Minimum requirements
Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it. Uncertified user RFCs or deleted user RFCs will be removed from this page. This information is also available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users.
Instructions
All participants in a user conduct RfC are expected to comply with the rules and guidelines stated below. Instructions to create a new User Conduct RfC are found in the "General User Conduct" section that follows. Once an RfC is created, it should be listed in the "Candidates pages" section, until two different users have certified the RfC. After certification, the RfC should be moved from the "Candidate pages" section to the "Approved pages" section.
Rules
Different RfCs have been run in different ways, but there are a few hard and fast rules:
- Personal attacks are not permitted at RfC.
- RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process.
- An RfC on user conduct must have the following in its structure:
- A statement of the dispute, including an evidence section with diffs, and evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute.
- The subject's response.
- Individual views from other editors.
- A list of which editors endorse each of the above sections.
Guidelines
Once a User Conduct RfC has been opened and certified, other editors can take a look and offer comments, either by posting their own view, or endorsing someone else's view.
The following represents the guidelines formed by general practice. These are not policies or "rules", but advice on how most RfCs are run:
- Anyone, including those who wrote the original RfC, is allowed to post their own view, in a separate section with their name on it, such as ==View by <name>== It can be helpful to indicate the viewpoint of the particular editor, such as "Outside view" "Inside view" "Semi-involved view" etc.
- In most cases those who brought the RfC do not post individualized views, since the initial statement already indicates their thoughts, but in some cases they may wish to post an additional individualized view to clarify their opinion. Either method is acceptable.
- Other users can endorse a view, by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.
- All signed comments and talk that are neither a view nor an endorsement should be directed to the discussion page.
- Any other types of discussion should be directed to the talkpage.
- Anyone can endorse any view, regardless of whether or not they are outside parties, inside parties, or even the subject of the RfC. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse.
- You may endorse as many views as you wish. You may also endorse the original RfC statement, and/or the subject's response.
- Only endorse views with which you agree. Do not post "disagreement" endorsements. The lack of a signature is sufficient indication that there may be some disagreement with the statement.
For more information on how previous RfCs have been run, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive.
Closing and archiving
Disputes may be removed from this page and archived under any of the following circumstances:
- If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped.
- The parties to the dispute agree.
- The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration.
Remove the link from the list here and add it to the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. If the dispute is handled in mediation or arbitration, please make a note of where the dispute resolution process continued.
General user conduct
Discussions about user conduct should be listed in this section unless the complaint is specifically about the use of admin privileges or the choice of username. To list a user conduct dispute, please create a subpage using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user as a template, and then list it as follows:
- Example user
- {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~ (note: that is five tildes, not four, RFCs are signed with the date only, not your username)
Use this form to generate a new page:
An alternate template example is available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user2. This new template has been redesigned from the original to try and focus more on discussion than conflict. If you would like to use this template, create a subpage and list it the same as a normal RFC:
- Example user2
- {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~ (note: that is five tildes, not four, RFCs are signed with the date only, not your username)
Or use this form to generate a page:
Note: In certain rare situations, the above methods may not work if there has already been a User Conduct RfC on that particular user, since clicking on the button will simply take you to the old page. If this happens, you will need to manually create the next page in the series. For example, if you wanted to create the third RfC on John Doe, you would create a page at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Doe 3]], and then list the new page in the "Candidate" section below. If you have any questions on this, you can ask at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct.
Candidate pages (users)
Approved pages (users)
These RfCs have met the two-person threshold. List newer entries on top.
- Collect
- User:Collect is a tendentious editor with a long history of edit warring and using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith. 12:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC) This case has votestacking allegations, and misses any claim of dispute efforts. 23:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Badagnani
- Badagnani has been constantly violating Wikipedia policies and choosing to criticize the editor instead of the edits. He refuses to cooperate when editing and only asks to discuss regarding the edits, which he almost never participates in. 01:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- DrKiernan
- DrKiernan has unilaterally downgraded at least 267 pages from A-class with no consultation with the WikiProjects concerned and during a period when Community-wide discussion on A-class was (and is) ongoing. 14:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Andrewjlockley
- Edit warring, over enthusiasm, abuse of references, POV pushing in and around geoengineering and global warming topics. 22:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Use of administrator privileges
This section is only for discussions specifically related to the use of sysop rights by Wikipedia:Administrators. This includes the actions of protecting or unprotecting pages, deleting or undeleting pages, blocking or unblocking users, and enforcing Arbitration Committee decisions. If the dispute is over an admin's actions as an editor, it should be listed under the General user conduct section above. To list a dispute, create a subpage using the following sample as a template:
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example admin
- Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~
As with disputes over general user conduct, at least two people must certify that they believe there is a legitimate basis for the complaint. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted.
Candidate pages (admins)
Approved pages (admins)
These RfCs have met the two-person threshold. List newer entries on top.
- JzG 3
- JzG has used administrative tools with respect to articles with which he was involved, and with respect to editors with whom he was in dispute. JzG has ignored or rejected comments and requests regarding this, and has denied improper use of tools. 05:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Use of bot privileges
This section is only for discussions specifically related to the operation of a bot. This includes the actions of unauthorized bots, bots without flags, and inter-wiki bots. It does not include the use of scripts or semi-automated tools on a user's account. If the dispute is over a bot owner's actions as an editor, it should be listed under the General user conduct section above. To list a dispute, create a subpage using the following sample as a template:
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example bot
- Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~
As with disputes over general user conduct, at least two people must certify that they believe there is a legitimate basis for the complaint. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted.
Candidate pages (bots)
Approved pages (bots)
These RfCs have met the two-person threshold. List newer entries on top.