Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ronnotel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Certification Failed. This RfC did not receive the minimum number of certifiers within the required timeframe and I am therefore closing it. Please note that this RfC appears to have been a retaliatory filing related to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DemolitionMan. Jehochman Talk 16:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Contents |
[edit] Statement of the dispute
Ronnotel has been abusing his power as an administrator, banning users adhering to viewpoint contrary to his own for utter abuses; while ignoring same abuses by users in sync with his personal views. He had also been falsely accusing users of pushing a certain religious view without any proof merely to prove his point
[edit] Desired outcome
Suspension of Ronnotel's adminstrator privileges from India-related articles for 6 months - time which he can spend understanding views from different cultural perspectives, while continuing his work as an administrator on non-desi articles
[edit] Description
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}
[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
-
- DemolitionMan
[edit] Other users who endorse this summary
[edit] Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] 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 editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
[edit] Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
