Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle
To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 17:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC).
Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Desired outcome
I am requesting User:PrivateWiddle to stop using his new signature, which appears to be a calculated method of insulting female wikipedians whilst purporting to be referring to Scotsmen. It's true that some people may find his official user name also to be offensive, but that does not concern me here. Deb (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Description
Prior to the recent dispute, this user - when he remembered to sign at all - used his official username for signing talk pages. Following a dispute which resulted from User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi nominating his article for deletion a day after I had speedy deleted an earlier version of the same article for a different reason, he began using the alternative signature "Devils in Skirts". I don't actually know the gender of FIM, but both our user names are suggestive of being female. FIM has asked him on a number of occasions to stop personal attacks (such as this), and I have asked him not to use this signature and told him what the consequences would be if he continued to do so. Offensive behaviour on wikipedia is one thing - I've had more hate mail than most and I try to ignore it - but sexism is another, and I do not feel we should have to tolerate it.Deb (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Evidence of disputed behavior
Before the change of signature:
First use of new signature (immediately following a personal attack):
Applicable policies and guidelines
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Attempts by certifier User:Deb
Attempts by certifier User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}
Response
This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}
Users who endorse this summary:
RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section
Views
This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.
Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.