Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Contents |
[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#User-conduct RfC 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:
- 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.
[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.
- Psychohistorian
- WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Approved pages
These RfCs have met the two-person threshold. List newer entries on top.
- BooyakaDell
- User:BooyakaDell has been accused by multiple users of acting in bad faith while proposing multiple non-US wrestling articles for deletion or adding notability tags. BooyakaDell and User:Curse of Fenric (and potentially others) have had edit wars and general uncivil behaviour. This RfC is urgent, to help cool tempers, and work towards agreement on these notability issues. 22:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Mitsos
- For quite some time now, Mitsos has brought a severe bias to articles dealing with Nazism or Greece. He makes edits that blatently promote his admitted political bias with little or no regard for Wikipedia's policices. 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Kelly Martin (3)
- This is an omnibus request for comments regarding this editor's long history of administrative and editorial misconduct. 04:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Jance
- WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations -- 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- CltFn
- User is making bad faith edits. 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keltik31
- All of user's edits seem racist and/or anti-semetic - at the very least extremely controversial. User is also very incivil to other users. 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Abu badali
- Abu Badali has seem fixated on his quest to delete all images and refuse to accept or listen to any disputes. I have also noticed him deleting dispute tags from images where people have not left a message on the talk page... 21:28, November 28, 2006 (UTC)
- Chowbok
- User is completely obtuse regarding mass placement of RfD tags. In spite of a large outcry, attempts by numerous editors to discuss this topic with him and reach consensus and agreement, he refuses to stop or listen. Furthermore, he has started trolling me (and has been accused of such by an independent party). 03:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sugaar
- Persistent personal attacks by a contributor and whether warning and blocking for these attacks is appropriate. 02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- BZ(Bruno Zollinger)
- User:BZ(Bruno Zollinger) often uses article talk pages for off-topic musings and personal conversations. When asked not to do so, BZ responds uncivilly and expresses contempt for Wikipedia policies and guidelines—and for other editors, often in nationalistic terms. 05:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Naradasupreme
- Naradasupreme is suspected of violating WP:SOCK and has been continually blanking talk pages. He has failed to respond to requests for an explanation. 21:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Kdbuffalo
- WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and other policies mainly trying to push a creationist POV. 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Rrfayette
- Rrfayette (talk • contribs). Disruptive editor who has been exhausting the community's patience with violations of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. He has failed to change his way of doing things despite many editors' advice. 14:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fairness And Accuracy For All
- WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, WP:U, WP:NPA and general disruption to Wikipedia. 21:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Anarcho-capitalism
- Disruptive editor who edits only to push his POV. His user page is insulting and he's shown no respect for WP policies or Wikipedia itself. 09:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fix Bayonets!
- Confederate States of America-related POV pushing, 3RR, assuming bad faith, incivility, and, awhile back, even a legal threat. 05:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Devilmaycares
- User is subtly pushing bias across multiple political articles. Most often anti-right but sometimes pro-left. 20:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nunh-huh
- CIV, POINT/ASR. 13:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Halibutt
- User conducts disrupting edits, like "jokes" over ethnic names. 22:58, 4 November 2006 (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
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.
- InShaneee
- User has apparently engaged in wheel-warring of some sort. I've no involvement or real knowledge of the issue (user who made the request is blocked at the moment and cannot edit... asked for a proxy filing on IRC) 06:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
