Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:41, 17 August 2005 editCesarB (talk | contribs)Administrators14,429 edits →General user conduct: neuter ext link← Previous edit Revision as of 23:47, 17 August 2005 edit undoPHenry (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers2,090 edits →Choice of username: OmbudsmanNext edit →
Line 140: Line 140:


''New listings here, please.'' ''New listings here, please.''

===User Ombudsman===
]'s username seems likely to create the false impression that he or she holds an official or authorized user advocacy role. Ombudsman appears to be ] to choose a different username voluntarily. --] 23:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


===User The Pedantic Prick=== ===User The Pedantic Prick===

Revision as of 23:47, 17 August 2005

Shortcut
  • ]
For general comments and feedback, use Misplaced Pages:Village pump, and choose the proper subsection.

Ultimately, the content of Misplaced Pages is determined by making progress toward a community consensus. However, the size of Misplaced Pages prevents community members from actively following every development. As a result, sometimes it's useful to request broader opinions from the rest of the community.

This page is a way that anyone can request other Wikipedians to help them resolve difficulties and disputes in articles or talk pages. Anyone may visit any of these articles, to help them reach agreement. A good quality RfC can help contributors resolve differences, add different insights, give comments and opinions on how others might see some wording, and so on. When listing a dispute here, you should also place a notice on the appropriate talk page.

It will help the RFC process if everyone who lists something on this page tries to help out at least one other page listed here.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes

Overview

When to use an article RfC

RFC is appropriate when you want other Wikipedians to visit the page, to allow a consensus or a better quality of decision, to help resolve a dispute or break a deadlock.

Before adding an entry here:

  • Whatever the nature of the dispute, the first resort should always be to discuss the problem with the other user. Try to resolve the dispute on your own first.
  • Don't forget to follow Wikiquette. Wikiquette is more important in resolving a dispute, not less.

Alternatives to RfC

How to use RfC

  • To request other users to comment on an issue, add a link to the Talk page for the article, a brief neutral statement of the issue, and the date.
  • Only with the date, don't list the details, and don't submit arguments or assign blame.
  • On the Talk page of the article, it can help to summarize the dispute.

Responding to RfCs

  • Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and keep calm.
  • Mediate where possible - identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.
  • If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Misplaced Pages policies.

Article content disputes

List links to talk pages where participants cannot reach consensus and are thus stalling progress on the article. Discussions with no recent comments may have dried up, and will be removed.

  1. List newer entries on top.
  2. Link to the Talk page.
  3. Sign entries with the date only. Use five tildes: ~~~~~.

Split by topic area

For greater convenience of users, RFC has been split by topic area. Please go to one of the subpages listed below, or visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All which transcludes all of them. Editors are encouraged to keep the subpage for their area(s) of specialty on their watchlist.

All issues related to a topic area, even if about the article title or inclusion of images, go in the section for that topic area. If you think the current topic areas are confusing or insufficient (or too broad or too narrow), please discuss this at the RFC talk page. If you believe an issue to be miscategorized, please move it to the appropriate section.

Misplaced Pages conventions

Comment about individual users

This section is for discussing specific users who have allegedly violated Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. In order to request comment about a user, please follow the instructions to create a subpage in the appropriate section below. Disputes over the writing of articles, including disputes over how best to follow the NPOV policy, belong in the Article content disputes section above.

Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people should have tried to resolve the same issue by discussing it with the subject on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. This must involve the same dispute or concern the same disputed type(s) of activity, not different ones.

Once the request for comment is open, these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page. Requests for comment which do not meet these minimum requirements after 48 hours from creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained.

Old discussions are kept in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive.

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 the following sample listing as a template (anything within {...} are notes):

  • /Example user - Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~

The boilerplate for the dispute page itself is at /Example user.


Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold
List newer entries on top

/User:Sleepnomore -- quick to accuse of vandalism, reverts valid edits

    • Please read the instructions directly above this section. Also, unless you have a second person to certify the RFC, it will be deleted. android79 22:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Approved pages - have met the two person threshold
List newer entries on top

  • /Agiantman - Personal attacks, lack of civility, accusations of sockpuppetry, POV pushing with respect to members of the Kennedy family.
  • /Nikolaos Karastathis User:NSK gaming the system, disruption, attempting to promote his http://www.wikinerds.org/ web site under the guise of "contributing" his own, copywrited material and demanding a prominent back link to his web site; plus personal attacks on UninvitedCompany.
  • /Silverhorse - Complete disregard for naming standards of British monarchs; was just anon IP, now has registered and is now moving pages around.
  • /-Ril- - Continued defiance of all editors who try to work with him, engaged in revenge reverts and filing of RfC, disruption and multiple 3RRs, trolling and stolking. --Noitall 09:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • /Maoririder - Continued refusal to stop submitting single sentence articles borders on trolling. 18:03, August 9, 2005
  • /12.144.5.2 - Continual defiance of Misplaced Pages style policies bordering on vandalism. 01:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • / Rainbowwarrior1977 - Engaged in personal attacks, RfA fraud, article vandalism, userpage vandalism, misuse of CSD templates, sockpuppetry, insulting and/or attacking edit summaries, attacks on other users, particularly admins, who correct his actions. 23:33, August 7, 2005
  • /Necromancing - VfDing pages to illustrate a point, uploading copyrighted material then claiming fair use without citing source for verification, does not seem to respond to any communications left on talk page. 03:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • /ComCat - Bulk VfDs, of which a large percentage are clearly not VfD material.
  • /DotSix - Revert wars, 3RR violations, removing other users' comments, personal attacks. 01:52, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • /Famekeeper - Lack of civility, using article talk pages as soapbox to extent of interfering with their use
  • /Boothy443 - Disrupts Misplaced Pages to prove a point that "Admins are evil", and engages in frequent personal attacks, showing a general lack of conduct in the Wiki way. Hedley 14:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC) (RfA started 14:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)).
  • /Gabrielsimon - revert wars, POV pushing, disregard of policies, accusations of abuse to other editors, undeterred by several blocks due to 3RR violations
  • /Pastorrussell - Claiming ownership of article, POV pushing, 3RR violations in revert war over NPOV banner
  • /Ultramarine - POV warrior, continual reverts and 3RR violations, refusal to work towards any kind of consensus, conflicts with multiple editors, is on a self-proclaimed crusade to purge[REDACTED] of what he considers improper views
  • /SNIyer1 - POV pushing, constant removal of information, failure to respond or acknowledge requests for dispute resolution, use of sockpuppets, multiple 3RR violations
  • /Germen - Edit warring on Islamophobia, POV pushing, inappropriate behaviour.
  • /Nightscream - POV pushing, Revert-warring, Violation of 3RR, Lack of wikiquette, Not responding to constructive discussion, Ignoring comments.
  • /Striver - POV pushing, severe sectarian bias, incivility
  • /Flowerofchivalry - POV pushing, Revert-warring, Violation of 3RR, Lack of etiquette, Lack of wikiquette, Resorting to personal attacks, Abuse of (nonexistent) power, Not responding to constructive discussion, Ignoring comments and warnings, Utilizing anonymous IP addresses to further revert-war, Inability to procure evidence and support
  • /68.170.0.238 - the "stop drinking soda" vandal, persistent POV edits, numerous warnings, vandalism

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:

  • /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 - still need to meet the two person threshold

Approved pages - have met the two person threshold

List newer entries on top

Choice of username

If you believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Misplaced Pages's username policy, you may create a subpage here to discuss whether the user should be forced to change usernames. However, before listing the user here, please first contact the user on his or her talk page and give them an opportunity to change usernames voluntarily.

Tools  : Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist

New listings here, please.

User Ombudsman

User:Ombudsman's username seems likely to create the false impression that he or she holds an official or authorized user advocacy role. Ombudsman appears to be disinclined to choose a different username voluntarily. --PHenry 23:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

User The Pedantic Prick

I've been blocked without any notification or discussion. Is the name ThePedanticPrick really that offensive? The only person it's criticizing is me, so it's obviously a bit of a joke. Pedantic has legitimate, non-derogatory meanings, and prick is mainly a synonym for jerk these days—I can't recall having ever heard the male-body-part sense in regular speech. Can I get a second opinion please? 38.117.131.2 18:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I consider that a valid block. When used to mean "jerk" it is comparing the person to the body part - hence the offense. "TheBigDick" would likely get blocked for the same reason. Try something that doesn't offend fragile American sensitivities. - Tεxτurε 19:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention I would have assumed it was an inflammatory name to insult User:PedanticallySpeaking. --Dmcdevit·t 19:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I notice the User:PedanticallySpeaking doesn't seem to have found anything wrong with the name: User_talk:ThePedanticPrick#Salutations!. --Monger 02:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Unlike members of other nations, Americans don't understand the concept of irony. This is the English-speaking wikipedia, not the US-American wikipedia, and the user should be unblocked. Pilatus 00:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying that any user name should be allowed, no matter how offensive it is in America, provided that it is not considered offensive in other English-speaking countries? Ravenswood 00:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
That isn't what I'm saying. I follow the user's reasoning that the name is inherently inoffensive (after all he applies the insult to himself and that Americans have more difficulties appreciating this. A username offensive to a certain nation would be, well, rude; this one turns out not to be on closer inspection. Pilatus 08:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I guess I didn't make myself clear. The word "prick" is offensive in America, not because it can be used as an insult, but because it is a synonym for "penis". -- Ravenswood 17:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
How exactly does a penis go about being pedantic? Insisting on wearing a condom? Adhering vigorously to ancient rules set forth in the Kama Sutra? Always ejaculating after precisely three minutes?
In America, "prick" is also (and more commonly) a synonym for "annoying person". --Carnildo 18:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
That is entirely irrelevant. "Cock" is often used to mean a male chicken, but the username "Pedantic Cock" would still be offensive. -- Ravenswood 19:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
And the phrase "get wood" also means to achieve an erection. Although I'm fairly cartain birds don't do that. Surely we have not lost all sense of absurdity, have we? Sweet bippy! Let the man have his (?) name so we can all get back to making WWF sub-stubs.
brenneman 15:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I live in the United States and have all my life. i frequently hear and see (in writing) people being refered to "pricks" it is rude, but little of any more offensive than "ass" used to refer to a person, if a bit ruder than "jerk" I don't find this user name significantly offensive, and i don't think it is far enough out of bounds to warrent a block. DES 16:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Just making sure everybody knows where I'm coming from on this: 1) I agree, "prick" is no more or less offensive (in America) than "ass". 2) I don't necessarily think it's offensive enough for a block, I just wanted to make sure the user is aware that it is offensive. Imagine an American choosing the name "Bloody Meat" without being aware of the fact that it would be offensive in England. Once he's made aware of that fact, he might opt to change it. 3) Woody Woodpecker has no less than three slang words for penis in his name and he's gotten away with it for decades. -- Ravenswood 17:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I would not consider "Bloody Meat" offensive. --Tim Pope 19:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think that people in England don't find anything offensive. Ravenswood 20:05, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Damn you Ravenswood! I'll never be able to hear "Heh-heh-heh-HEH-heh!" again without giggling like a schoolgirl. *^-^* - brenneman 00:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Bah. I'm an American, and I think the name's funny, and not offensive in the least. Let 'im keep it. --Jemiller226 06:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

User Anonip

User Sleepnomore

  • I'm quite sure someone should take the time to look at the havoc he has caused in regard to his requesting that user's IPs be blocked for vandalism. He often removes valid edits calling those edits vandalism, and wields a disturbing power here. Everything he requests, it seems, is done. I find it odd that administrators would show favoritism to someone such as this that acts inappropriatly (re: JAXASS) under the guise of civility. The user is a menace and is constantly using his own prejudicial views to validate his actions. Some one should shorten his leash just a little bit. I only make this claim as someone who has been blocked unjustly Michael.
    • Please note, I've welcomed an RfC from "Michael" in particular. He has used multiple IP's to vandalize pages. He consistently attributes his posts to Catmistake while posting from anonymous IPs. He's made threats -- physical, financial, career, and otherwise towards myself and anyone else that opposes him. Please feel free to look at my history first and let me know if you think I've done something wrong. However, after looking at my history, I ask you to look at the history of the following IP's Michael has posted from:
  • User:24.53.131.244
  • User:218.248.1.13

Additionally, please ask the following admins about this user's behavior that caused several days of lockdown on Jesse James Garrett and Ajax_(programming), required reverts to several user pages and articles, and in general prolonged what should have been a simple discussion instead of days of in-fighting.

Thanks. - Sleepnomore 22:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

    • What's that got to do with his username? If this is a user dispute, make a subpage for it and list it in the appropriate section. android79 22:06, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • oops, sorry... will do (just call this a brain fart)
        • Or call it what it actually is: A continuous and patterned disregard for Misplaced Pages rules and policy. - Sleepnomore 22:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
          • Let me add... what Sleepnomore acuses me of is not true. User:24.53.131.244 is me... that's my IP... and what I was doing was not vandalism, but attempting to twart Sleepnomore's vandalism (re: his "Criticism" section and his person vendetta against an individual simply because he coined a word). I just figured out that I could use this 218.248.1.13 once Sleepnomore had me blocked for simply responding to a query by an anonymous T-mobile user. IT WASN'T VANDALISM. Is it the policy of Wikopedia admins that everything that is accused as vandalism becomes vandalism? See what I mean? Sleepnomore knows how to manipulate the system here... and he is good at it. Michael

Please take this to an RFC subpage or elsewhere. This discussion does not belong on the main RFC page. android79 22:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Michael

Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment: Difference between revisions Add topic