Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

WP:RFC/U redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Request for checkuser (WP:RFCU).

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.

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)

Candidate pages

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

Korea history

Edit warring, failure to discuss, POV-pushing. 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RichardBennett

WP:CIVIL, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, WP:SOCK, WP:NPA Possibly related: WP:NPOV

Approved pages

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

Justanother

Primarily: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COI; Possibly related: WP:NPOV, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL 03:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann

WP:ATT, WP:ENC, WP:NOR, WP:CIV, WP:OWN. 15:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain

WP:POINT, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:DP, WP:AGF, WP:CANVAS, WP:N, WP:CIVIL, WP:CSD, WP:NPOV. 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Gravitor

WP:AGF, WP:Civility, WP:NPA, WP:POINT . 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow

WP:NOR, WP:AGF, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV. 02:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Biophys

Unstoppable stalking, uncivilty, intimidation and harassing. WP:STALK, WP:BLP, WP:CIV 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jobstbrandt

WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:REF, WP:DE and potentially WP:CIVIL.17:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

LSLM

User:LSLM has been committing persistent personal attacks for a long time, along with other disruptive behaviour such as violation of 3RR rule and vandalism. 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov

Persistent WP:STALK violations 14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also WP:BLP and WP:CIV violations. 21:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Evrik

Has falsely accused an editor of harassment and wikistalking, is disruptive, and refuses to accept fair use policy. 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

L0b0t

User-talk page incivility, treating content disputes as vandalism.

Abu badali

This RFC did not appear to be listed. Claims of wikistalking and deceptive and disruptive behavior. To do with listing images as Replacable Fair Use.

Vergina

Abuse of user page as a political soapbox, inflammatory username. 14:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia

Abuse of user page as a political soapbox, inflammatory username, image abuse. 13:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

KazakhPol

WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR violations 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

JJay

Abortive second go-around after failed refactoring: Issues of civility, talk page obfuscation, and providing sources. - 07:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton

Incivility, personal attacks, failure to assume good faith. 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

ForrestLane42

Incivility, personal attacks, accusations of sockpuppetry on both sides, harassment. - 18:07 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist

3RR, Sock, personal attacks, etc. concerning the political issues of naming convention with Taiwan/ROC. 02:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

BWCNY

WP:NOR, WP:CIVIL, other issues. 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Logicus

WP:DE, WP:NOR, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA 15:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Rangeley

WP:SOAP, WP:POINT, Wikipedia:Vote-stacking 11:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Darkcat21

WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NPA, and WP:3RR

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.

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.

Betacommand

Allegations: Use of WP:BLOCK and understanding of WP:U 02:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice

Allegations: This overzealous administrator has inappropriately used his privileges in editorial conflicts to win "edit wars" against an entire population of Wikipedians who, on the talk page, widely agree with said edits, most notably on the Shock Site entry. The user has blocked articles from being edited indiscriminately and inappropriately. There are many comments from other users relating to such situations on their talk page. Aftli 05:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow

Allegations: understanding of WP:BLP and application of WP:BLOCK (self nom)--Doc^g 11:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Blanning

Allegations: Abuse of DRV closure during an ongoing debate. 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)