| Revision as of 20:21, 6 August 2007 editEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,835 edits →Candidate pages: delisting RfC/Eyrian← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:52, 7 August 2007 edit undoElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,960 edits →Instructions: - ExpandingNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| * Individual Views from other editors | * Individual Views from other editors | ||
| * A list of which editors endorse each of the above sections | * 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=== | ===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: | 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. | * 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. | ||
| Line 47: | Line 53: | ||
| width=50 | width=50 | ||
| </inputbox> | </inputbox> | ||
| Note: In certain rare situations, the above method 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 <nowiki>]</nowiki>, and then list the new page in the "Candidate" section below. If you have any questions on this, you can ask at ]. | |||
| ===Candidate pages=== | ===Candidate pages=== | ||
Revision as of 18:52, 7 August 2007
Shortcut- ]
This page is a list of project pages associated with the same title or shortcut.If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended page.
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
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 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)
Note: In certain rare situations, the above method 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 ], and then list the new page in the "Candidate" section below. If you have any questions on this, you can ask at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User conduct.
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.
- Custerwest
- Personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, refusal to learn or abide by WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, selective use of sources (cherrypicking) to push POV, including falsification of a quote and copyright violation, WP:COI with personal blogsite. 10:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- HanzoHattori
- Personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, refusal to learn or abide by WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. 10:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Kmweber
- Incessant, rude, and slightly uncivil self-nomination RfA opposing. Violations of WP:POINT. 14:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Revert waring, harassment, incivility. 18:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alkivar
- Incivility to other editors (particularly in edit summaries). 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Repeated accusations of POV editing, deletion of references, misrepresentation of edits and references, personal attacks, general incivility. 14:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Artaxerex
- Continued personal attacks and incivility, disruptive editing, POV-pushing and original research.14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Russianname
- Continued disruptive editing, edit warring, POV-pushing and incivility, unwillingness to cooperate or to explain his actions. --Hillock65 14:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Gnixon
- Edit-warring, refactoring talk pages, personal attacks, POV-pushing, stalking, large edits without consensus, civility, canvassing. Orangemarlin 00:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Shashwat_pandey
- Consistent history of POV abuse, tendentious editing, disruptive editing, repeated reverts, and persistent posting of original research. 17:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jiejunkong
- Continued revert wars, use of provocative comments, unilateral removal or addition of disputed words or terminologies. 02:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Rktect
- Extensive original research and overall disruption of articles. 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Angie Y.
- Continuing disputes with multiple users, unacceptable behaviour including incivility, personal attacks, lack of good faith and canvassing. 16:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alansohn
- Repeated pattern of hostility, wikilawyering, and AGF and POINT violations. 00:36, 28 June 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.
- Banno
- Admin temporarily blocked another editor involved in the same issue. 17:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Spartaz
- Admin removed an indefinite block of a grossly uncivil ban-evading sockpuppeteer. 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ryulong
- Blocking users much too quickly; causing many issues. 16:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)