Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

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.

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)

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)

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

Skyring

Tendentious editing and edit warring on the topic of John Howard and David Hicks. 23:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Approved pages (users)

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

Strider12

Tendentious and disruptive editing and abusing Wikipedia as a venue for advocacy on the topic of abortion and mental health. 23:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

77.128.196.58

WP:3RR edge cases, does not follow consensus. 08:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland

To determine if Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia's policies on WP:SOCK, unable to do checkuser due to one account only editing via open proxies. Evidence has been submitted to determine if they can be considered a match under the Duck Test 02:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Quizimodo

Incivility and unwillingness to engage in dispute resolution.

Skipsievert

The editor skip has added or remove content to support his own POV and promote his own agenda disregarding secondary sources. He also engages in personal attacks on other editors. He does not wish to cooperate with other editors. 07:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

MPF

User's editing of various plant articles is disputed with respect to POV removal or modification of common names. 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Muscovite99

Users dialogue on talk pages has been abusive, and violated WP:NPA and WP:3RR. 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

81.9.61.227

Anonymous user with changing IP address seems to have thoroughly broken 3RR at Thelema in support of a view strongly pushed by sockpuppets of User:Ekajati. 07:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

BigGabriel555

User has a recent pattern of tendentious editing that is now bordering on disruptive regarding articles related to the Dominican Republic. User has ignored requests both in edit summaries and on his user talkpage to work towards consensus.-- 22:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua

User is developing a pattern of bad faith image delete nominations to make a point which is becoming disruptive. 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cumulus Clouds

Combative editing and multiple policy violations. - 22:09, 9 February 2008 (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 (admins)

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

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.

Approved pages (bots)

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