This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elonka (talk | contribs) at 19:15, 21 June 2007 (Adding instructions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:15, 21 June 2007 by Elonka (talk | contribs) (Adding instructions)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut- ]
- 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:
- If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped.
- The parties to the dispute agree.
- 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.
- Mark_Kim
- Long term incivility, personal attacks, and owning articles. 04:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Approved pages
These RfCs have met the two-person threshold. List newer entries on top.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
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.