Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
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#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:
- 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)
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.
- Constant incivility, disregard for consensus, votemongering, vote stacking. 00:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- User engage in uncivilly, disruptive editing and WP:BATTLEFIELD and continuously acting against WP:NPA and WP:NLT. 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Constant insults and attacks on other users.
- Edit warring, incivility, gaming the system, personal attacks
- Abuse of multiple accounts. Refusal to abide by content policies and respect consensus, edit warring.
- Incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, refusal to engage in consensus building by the above named user.
- At best incivility, apparent canvassing, edit warring in articles & other users' talk pages, and other disruptive conduct, 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Incivility, Edit warring (both in articles and on other users' talk pages) 06:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Incivilty/Edit Warring 14:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Disruption of Wikipedia via COI and EL violations and wikilawyering. 12:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Disruption of Wikipedia via POV pushing and disregard for consensus. 13:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Disregard for consensus, primarily regarding formatting/style. 17:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Disruptive NPOV edits on Microsoft, PlayStation, Nintendo and Apple Inc related articles. 01:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- 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).
- Persistent POV edits to remove geographic terminology he objects to.
- 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.
