Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Note: In certain rare situations, the above method 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

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

Approved pages

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

Rkowalke

Essentially a single-purpose account focused on Warren National University. Violations of WP:COI, WP:OWN, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and possibly WP:SOCK.01:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Bluemarine

Repeated violations of WP:AUTO, WP:SOCK, WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:NPOV. 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ThreeE

Repeated violations of WP:ATTACK, WP:Vandalism, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:Civil, WP:AGF, WP:USER, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT in an attempt to force his POV upon other editors by deleting sentences which he feels do not belong on Wikipedia, and attacking and harassing users who happen to respectfully disagree with his POV. Furthermore, has a demonstrated a limited understanding of the process behind Wikipedia, especially policy and guidelines 11:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nescio

WP:OWN, WP:GAME and other violations related to POV. 10:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No uninvolved views, and only 1 uninvolved endorsement after 2 weeks. I. Pankonin (t/c) 04:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe

Ownership WP:OWN, WP:NPOV - unable or unwilling to understand and comply with WP:NPOV, disruptive and obstructive behavior. 02:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Epbr123

Repeated violations of WP:OWN, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT in an attempt to force his POV upon other editors by deleting articles which he feels do not belong on Wikipedia, and attacking and harassing users who happen to respectfully disagree with his POV. Furthermore, has a demonstrated a limited understanding of the process behind Wikipedia, including conflict resolution and the reasons for the WP:AFD process. -- 19:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ludovicapipa

Repeated violations of: No personal attacks, WP:SKILL, Civility, WP:NPOV. Already blocked for one year at the PT Wikipedia under username Filomeninha. 20:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: As of 9/11/07 at 12:55PM PDT (5 days after the RFC was filed), this RFC has only received one outside view and several endorsements of that view. It has otherwise not had any significant participation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi

Disruptive editing (WP:DISRUPT), Gaming the system (WP:POINT), No personal attacks (WP:NPA), Civility (WP:CIVIL), Wikipedia is not a battleground (WP:BATTLE), Vandalism (WP:VANDAL) - Modifying users' comments.17:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Kwork

Personal attack, WP:Soap, WP:Civility; failure to look at or abide by core policies 18:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jebbrady

Incivility, personal attacks, article ownership, persistent edit warring, fails to use edit summaries. 20:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Carlitos

Accuses others of being paid agents, references innuendos when unrelated to the topic at hand, refuses to assume good faith.18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Custerwest

Personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, refusal to learn or abide by WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, selective use of sources (cherrypicking) to push POV, including falsification of a quote and copyright violation, WP:COI with personal blogsite. 10:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori

Personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, refusal to learn or abide by WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. 10:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Kmweber

Incessant, rude, and slightly uncivil self-nomination RfA opposing. Violations of WP:POINT. 14:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar

Incivility to other editors (particularly in edit summaries). 15:43, 27 July 2007 (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, 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.

Approved pages

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

none currently listed