Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:59, 22 June 2007

• ]

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

This process is for discussing specific users who have violated Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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

RfC guidelines

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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.

Anonywiki

Long-term conduct in violation of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. 01:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Approved pages

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

Mark_Kim

Long term incivility, personal attacks, and owning articles. 04:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn

Long-term pattern of attempts to represent private fantasies as historical fact coupled with hostile attitude towards any criticism, regularly leading to ethnic insults against Baltic editors. 20:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Kuban kazak

Long-term edit warring and personal attacks 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777

Long-term conduct in breach of WP:CIVIL. 08:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Xihix

WP:NPA, WP:CIV, disruptive editing, fair use violations. 19:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Assault11

Disruptive editing. 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red

WP:OWN, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:SPA issues at Juice Plus. 10:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Atabek

Continued false accusations, harrasment, and canvassing.00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike18xx

WP:MEAT, WP:NPA and other subsequent issues. - 10:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbiteroftruth

Editor opened RfC on himself to review his conducts against various vandals of Misplaced Pages. Since editor opened the RfC on himself, a second endorsement isn't required. 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cla68

Editor opened RfC on himself to review his conduct related to Gary Weiss editing, "attack" site issues, and accusations of supporting banned user WordBomb. Since editor opened the RfC on himself, a second endorsement isn't required. 21:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Eiorgiomugini

Wikiowning and wikilawyering issues peppered with occasional violations of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. 07:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

AlexCovarrubias

WP:DE, WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, and various other WP policy violations. 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Eep²

Incivility, especially namecalling; deliberate end-runs around deletion policy. 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The strokes

Continious violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL stemming from a dispute over fair use images 13:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of administrator privileges

This section is only for discussions specifically related to the use of sysop rights by Misplaced Pages: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:

Misplaced Pages: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

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. 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: 08:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

• protecting and unprotecting pages
• deleting and undeleting pages
• blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Example user.

• Omegatron (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement of the dispute

Omegatron has inappropriately used admin tools (specifically undelete, page protection) in a dispute about a series of articles to which Omegatron is a significant contributor. The articles affected include:

• HHO gas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brown's gas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aquygen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Denny Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Specifically, Omegatron, an involved editor, removed {{deletedarticle}} from Aquygen and Denny Klein, replacing them with redirects to oxyhydrogen, undeleted HHO gas, which has been deleted now by four separate AfDs and reviewed several times.

Note that it is quite possible the actions were correct, in that there may be a need to restore history for GFDL if text was merged; this is not relevant because Omegatron gives the strong appearance of misusing tools in a content dispute. An unambiguous fix for GFDL should have been noted as such, and should ideally have been left to another admin. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Omegatron believes this is "harassment" after AfD / DRV "endorsed" his position. AfD deleted the article he undeleted, DRV endorsed its remaining deleted. It is currently a redirect. It is hard to see how this amounts to an endorsement, and it is also quite worrying that he still sees nothing wrong with undeleting a multiply deleted and endorsed article to which he was a significant contributor. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Desired outcome

Omagatron to give an undertaking not to use admin tools in respect of articles where he is strongly vested.

Description

Powers misused

• Protection (log):

1. Aquygen
2. Denny Klein

• Deletion (log):

1. HHO gas (undeletion)
2. Aquygen
3. Denny Klein

• Blocking (log):

1. {list user or users blocked}

Applicable policies

• Protection policy

1. Protecting pages while in a content dispute, no extenuating circumstances (e.g. not WP:BLP)

• Deletion policy

1. Undeletion and deletion of articles where Omegatron is vested.

• Blocking policy

1. {explain violation of blocking policy here}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive91#Omegatron
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive92#When_can_AfDs_be_closed_against_consensus.3F
3. Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 7
4. Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 12
5. User_talk:Omegatron#Redirects

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
2. EliminatorJR 09:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
3. --Tbeatty 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

1. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Shell 01:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

As explained on my talk page :

• I was asked to unsalt the redirects from HHO Gas and related articles, which I did. I left them as protected redirects so that they couldn't be recreated as articles, per past AfDs.
• Creating redirects for "Other names, pseudonyms, nicknames, and synonyms" is completely normal and usually uncontroversial. (Aquygen is a synonym for HHO gas. Denny Klein is the CEO of the company that promotes it.)
• I asked EliminatorJR if there was something wrong with them. I would gladly re-delete them if there were a reason that redirects shouldn't exist, but no reason was presented.
• Tbeatty then pointed out that it could be seen as advertisement. I reminded him that I am not affiliated with the company (as anyone can see from my contributions criticizing the company and my fighting to keep an article debunking their bogus claims). Redirects from alternative names are not usually considered advertisement.
• I asked for a third-party opinion (from someone not involved in the AfD).

I don't see why this was brought up except to continue harassing me after the outcome of the AfD/DRV supported my position. — Omegatron 15:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As for my undeletion (which we've already discussed):

Deletion policy states that an admin can undo a deletion action immediately if he thinks it is clearly out of process. Although my involvement with the page might arouse suspicion, I've explained my motives on the deleting admin's talk page: I logged in, saw that the AfD was still open (or had been re-opened), and saw his comment that he wasn't going to undelete the articles, so I took it upon myself. Speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial cases. If another admin disagrees with the speedy, it's automatically controversial, and needs to go through a normal AfD. This speedy was based on WP:CSD G4 and G11, but several people pointed out that these didn't apply; the article can't be blatant advertising if it contains significant criticism, and the last DRV specifically stated that the article could be recreated.

I should have talked to him before undeleting, and I've freely admitted that this was a mistake and apologized. — Omegatron 06:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. I can't see any abuse happening here. Catchpole 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
2. The way, the truth, and the light 19:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
3. ATren 04:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Sigh. Femto 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

From , this article has had questions about improper AfD close/DRV opening, etc. where Omegatron acted (possibly with a different motive) to act in a way that unscrambled a difficult situation. Probably not the smartest move to keep acting with Admin tools in an article/subject that one has been intimately connected with in editing/AfD discussion/etc. But problematic-to-the-drama-its-been-given? Not really. Maybe it's time to leave things as they were (articles salted/protected/etc.,) but also for all Admins involved to step back and let other disinterested Admins step in. Certainly not sanction-worthy.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. LaughingVulcan 14:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
2. bibliomaniac15 19:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Legitimate RfC, but not sanction worthy. Addhoc 23:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Seems that Omegatron himself has endorsed this view as he has acknowledged making several mistakes. Seems unlikely to happen again. --JayHenry 01:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
5. This seems a fair summary. It is, I would observe, consistent with Omegatron's response supra, that it is quite possible that the the community does not view the summary undeletion of a speedied article as wheel warring or otherwise as an improper use of administrative tools; it is essentially an extension of BRD, consistent with the idea that speedy deletion is appropriate only for those cases that can reasonably be expected to be uncontroversial/that are on all fours with CSD as strictly construed. The latter observation is not entirely relevant here in view of the specific circumstances—acting qua admin where one has been involved qua editor is always wrong, as is acting, without discussion, contrary to a well-defined previous consensus (whether that actually happened here is obviously a matter of interpretation)—but it goes, at the very least, to the proposition that Omegatron's behavior isn't nearly as pernicious as might have been the converse (viz., the speedy deletion or redirection of an article that had survived multiple AfDs by a not uninvolved editor, a problem by which we have been beset of late). (Yes, this is simply an endorsement of this Laughing's outside view and not a separate view, its considerable length notwithstanding.) Joe 02:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
6. In as much as Omegatron appears now to accept that using tools in this case was an error of judgement, I would suggest that the desired outcome has been achieved and we can probably leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Fair enough. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Per JzG above, and acknowledging that my speedy deletion did more harm than good. Tom Harrison 14:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Let's just leave this matter closed with the establishment of the current status quo. —Kurykh 22:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Agreed. EliminatorJR 00:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Agreed. The only thing left is to speedy Talk:HHO gas for G8. It is still being used as a discussion for a non-existent article. Move discussion to Talk:Oxyhydrogen --Tbeatty 04:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Approved pages

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