Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is for archiving user conduct disputes listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Archived disputes should not be added to. Disputes should be 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.

If the dispute is handled in mediation or arbitration, please make a note of where the dispute resolution process continued.

Archived disputes

[edit]
  • Newer entries towards the top
  • This page only displays user RFCs from the most recent year and the current year, older discussions can be found in the archives, a search box is provided above
  • As of March 25, 2013, the names of the certifiers are no longer a required field. You can find this information easily by clicking the link to the RFC itself.
Name Start date Description Notes
Atsme 24 October 2014 Canvassing, Ownership of Articles, Battleground behavior Closed due to lack of progress.
30 SW 26 August 2014 Copyright and sourcing issues 30 SW has not edited since just before the RFC was filed. RFC indefinitely suspended due to inactivity.
Dan56 July 29 2014 Copyright concerns, ownership of articles several participants blocked as socks, Dan56 reminded of relevant policies
Worldedixor 11 September 2014 Worldedixor's problematic manner in handling disputes Closed due to inactivity
Redrose64 15 October 2014 Page protection of template Page protection level reduced, RFC closed per request of filer.
Middayexpress 22 August 2014 Alleged POV pushing, page ownership, cherry-picking of sources Further discussion is recommended, possibly followed by a topic-ban request (at ANI) or arbitration if necessary.
24.0.133.234 11 March 2014 Inability for the IP to follow policy Delisted for inactivity and very little comments, no edits since day 2 of RFC.
Scholarlyarticles 28 February 2014 Aggressive lack of understanding and violations of various Wikipedia policies Involved and outside views; no response; closed due to inactivity. Uncertainty regarding whether subject retired from Wikipedia or not; recommendation to escalate dispute if issues persist in any case.
Arzel.2 11 January 2014 Issues "Whitewashing" not firmly established, but likely NPA violations are.
QuackGuru2 26 January 2014 Overzealous in efforts to stamp out what they consider fringe No clear consensus that user is disruptive in what is already a contentious area.
PrivateWiddle 15 February 2014 Dispute over user signatures Nearly all comments occurred within a week of original complaint. Clear consensus was that the signature was not offensive
Colton Cosmic 9 February 2014 Request for unblock, sockpuppetry issues Consensus is to leave the user blocked.
Oranjelo100 20 November 2013 Perform large numbers of edits, with relatively small amounts of actual changes to the articles and not using edit summaries. Closed due to inactivity and low participation.
Joefromrandb 15 August 2013 Long-term incivility, personal attacks, and edit-warring No conclusive outcomes, Wikipedia is not a battleground, edit warring is unconstructive
Baboon43 22 June 2013 Uncivil behavior, edit warring, and sock puppetry, mostly related to Islam topics Discussion went stale after a few weeks, with Baboon43 refusing to participate, before the issue was taken to AN, resulting in an indefinite block.
Arzel 13 May 2013 Talk page and behavioral issues Withdrawn after discussion on talk page of RfC/U
Folken de Fanel 30 April 2013 Problematic behaviour around AfDs and notability issues related to Dungeons & Dragons There was consensus that Folken's approach needs to change. The closing admin suggested that he agree to a voluntary topic ban regarding deletion issues in the problem area.
Jax 0677 29 March 2013 Problematic creation of navboxes and other content Some progress, later apparenrlty reversed. a proposal for a formal topic ban is anticipated
Will Beback 23 March 2013 To discuss whether Will should be allowed back to edit No consensus to overturn Arbcom decision
CartoonDiablo 20 January 2013 Tendentious editing/POV issues All participants other than the certifiers felt that this dispute was about content, not conduct
Apostle12 21 December 2012 Soapboxing, personal attacks, unreliable sources, canvassing Closed due to inactivity


Name Start date Description First two certifiers Notes
Cantaloupe2 31 January 2013 Concerns about civility, battlegrounding, and related conduct issues AndrewDressel, CorporateM Serious and valid problems with Cantaloupe2's conduct exist. The matter might be taken up by ArbCom.
Epeefleche 15 January 2013 Removal of unsourced content from articles Danjel, Graham87 Epeefleche is broadly correct to remove unsourced content, and Danjel has often acted wrongly in restoring unsourced content.
Also, Danjel's conduct is widely seen as hounding.