Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/User conduct: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:24, 22 June 2007 editCrossmr (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers18,925 edits →General user conduct← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:08, 25 July 2022 edit undoDwaipayanc (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,440 editsm Reverted edits by 5.245.241.17 (talk) to last version by Ed6767Tag: Rollback 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|historical document}}
{{shortcut|]<br>]}}
:''WP:RFC/U redirects here. You may be looking for ] (]).'' {{selfref|WP:RFC/U redirects here. You may be looking for ] (formerly WP:RFCU) or for ] (])}}
{{historical|type=woundup|comment=<br>'''The RFC/U process has been discontinued as a result of ].'''<br>'''Other ] processes should be used for conduct issues.|brief=yes}}
This process is for discussing specific users who have violated ]. 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 ] policy, belong in ].
{{info|Prior to ] at the ] that was closed in December 2014, ] on user conduct (RfC/Us) were used to discuss the problematic behaviour of specific Misplaced Pages editors, as part of the ]. RfC/Us were an informal, non-binding process. According to the discussion's closing statement, many editors found the RfC/U process ineffectual. As a result, it was closed down on 7 December 2014.


Old RfC/Us can be found in ].
==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 ] 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 ].

==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 ''']'''. 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 ] as a template, and then list it as follows:

;]
:{''one or two'' short sentences giving the dry facts} <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> (note: that is five tildes, not four, RFCs are signed with the date only, not your username)

<inputbox>
type=create
preload=Template:RfCsubst
default=Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/USERNAME
buttonlabel=User conduct
bgcolor=#eeeeff
width=50
</inputbox>

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


;]
:Long-term conduct in violation of ], ], and ]. 01:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

===Approved pages===
These RfCs have met the two-person threshold. List newer entries on top.


; ]
: Long term incivility, personal attacks, and owning articles. 04:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

; ]
: 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)

;]
:Long-term edit warring and personal attacks 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

; ]
: Long-term conduct in breach of ]. 08:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

;]
:], ], disruptive editing, fair use violations. 19:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

;]
:Disruptive editing. 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

; ]
: ], ], and ] issues at ]. 10:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

;]
:Continued false accusations, harrasment, and canvassing.00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

;]
:], ] and other subsequent issues. - 10:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

;]
: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)

;]
:Editor opened RfC on himself to review his conduct related to ] editing, "attack" site issues, and accusations of supporting banned user ]. Since editor opened the RfC on himself, a second endorsement isn't required. 21:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

;]
:Wikiowning and wikilawyering issues peppered with occasional violations of ] and ]. 07:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

;]
:], ], ], and various other WP policy violations. 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

;]
:Incivility, especially namecalling; deliberate end-runs around deletion policy. 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

;]
:Continious violations of ] and ] 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 ]. 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:

;]
:Allegations: {''one or two'' short sentences giving the dry facts} <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>

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.

]

Latest revision as of 04:08, 25 July 2022

historical document WP:RFC/U redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations (formerly WP:RFCU) or for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names (WP:RFC/NAME)
This page has been closed down by community consensus, and is retained only for historical reference.
If you wish to restart discussion on the status of this page, seek community input at a forum such as the village pump.
The RFC/U process has been discontinued as a result of this discussion.
Other dispute resolution processes should be used for conduct issues.
Prior to a discussion at the Village Pump that was closed in December 2014, requests for comment on user conduct (RfC/Us) were used to discuss the problematic behaviour of specific Misplaced Pages editors, as part of the dispute resolution process. RfC/Us were an informal, non-binding process. According to the discussion's closing statement, many editors found the RfC/U process ineffectual. As a result, it was closed down on 7 December 2014. Old RfC/Us can be found in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive.
Category: