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#User-conduct RfC 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.

Approved pages

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

BrandonYusufToropov

WP:CIV and WP:NPA violations - 07:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat

WP:NPA, WP:CON 13:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vintila Barbu

Suspicions of plagiarism need discussion. - 20:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychohistorian

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos

For quite some time now, Mitsos has brought a severe bias to articles dealing with Nazism or Greece. He makes edits that blatently promote his admitted political bias with little or no regard for Wikipedia's policices. 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:REVERT, WP:WHEEL, WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, WP:POINT

Kelly Martin (3)

This is an omnibus request for comments regarding this editor's long history of administrative and editorial misconduct. 04:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Jance

WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations -- 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

CltFn

User is making bad faith edits. 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Keltik31

All of user's edits seem racist and/or anti-semetic - at the very least extremely controversial. User is also very incivil to other users. 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Abu badali

Abu Badali has seem fixated on his quest to delete all images and refuse to accept or listen to any disputes. I have also noticed him deleting dispute tags from images where people have not left a message on the talk page... 21:28, November 28, 2006 (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.

Candidate pages

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

User: Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

1 Statement of the dispute Nearly Headless Nick has twice misused the blocking policy in one month, Dec. 2006.

• 1.1 Description

Nick blocked User:Malber without notice while he was personally involved in a dispute with Malber re RfA questions; Nick blocked User:Kuntan for his username, although the username does not violate WP:USERNAME. Cindery 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• 1.2 Evidence of disputed behaviours

Punitive block on User:Malber: [1] Aware Kuntan not a username violation, use of obscene photo: [2][3] [4]

[5] (scroll to last issue, "Kuntan prematurely deleted")--see below instead, since this was deleted: [6] [7]

• 1.3 Powers misused

WP:BLOCK

• 1.4 Applicable policies

WP:CIVIL for the obscene photo

• 1.5 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(re Malber block: Amarkov's comments, Malber's comments. Nick's "apology" a PA on Malber. Re Kuntan, SA Jordan's comments on Nick's talkpage: [8] and the username RFC.)

• 1.6 Users certifying the basis for this dispute
• 1.7 Other users who endorse this statement

Approved pages

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