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 05:02, 3 August 2008 editWizardman (talk | contribs)Administrators399,807 edits →Approved pages (users): archiving dorftrottel← 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 
(536 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|historical document}}
{{Shortcut|WP:RFCC|WP:RFC/USER|WP:RFC/ADMIN|WP:RFC/BOT}}
{{dabpage|WP:RFC/U redirects here. You may be looking for ] (]) or 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 may 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 ].
Before using this page, you should have read the ]. You might also want to read ].
}}

==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

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 ].

==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)

Use this form to generate a new page:
<inputbox>
type=create
preload=Template:RfCsubst
default=Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/USERNAME
buttonlabel=Create User Conduct RFC
bgcolor=#eeeeff
width=50
</inputbox>

An alternate template example is available at ]. This new template has been redesigned from the original to try and focus more on discussion than conflict. If you would like to use this template, create a subpage and list it the same as a normal RFC:
;]
:{''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)
Or use this form to generate a page:
<inputbox>
type=create
preload=Template:RfC2subst
default=Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/USERNAME
buttonlabel=Create User Conduct RFC2
bgcolor=#eeeeff
width=50
</inputbox>

Note: In certain rare situations, the above methods 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 (users)===

===Approved pages (users)===

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

''']'''
:A disruptive and tendentious single purpose account. MAL01159 has disputed every source provided by other editors, but has not provided any source to back up their own position (other than one requiring an original interpretation of primary source data), and has consistently refused to accept the unanimous consensus of other editors. 20:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

''']'''
:New user who has revert-warred, made uncivil comments and mild threats, and responds to constructive criticisms with hostility. Claims to be the authority in the field he's interested in and warns other good-faith editors to stay away from such articles "or else". 06:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

''']'''
:Long-term tendentious and disruptive editing, personal attacks and bad-faith statements. 18:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

''']'''
:Moved unilaterally a page whose name has been very controversial, against the Misplaced Pages policy. 15:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

''']'''
:For repeated violation of notability, relevance, and npov guidelines. 22:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

''']'''
:Refusal to follow consensus, personal attacks, incivility. 00:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

''']'''
:Self-filed RFC/U, primarily regarding arbitration-related conduct. 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

''']'''
:GoRight, history of disruptive editing. 12:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

''']'''
: Constant incivility, disregard for consensus, votemongering, vote stacking. 00:26, 6 June 2008 (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 (admins)===


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

''']'''

:Concerns about the management of editing conditions. 22:29, 1 August 2008

== Use of bot privileges ==
This section is only for discussions specifically related to the operation of a ]. This includes the actions of unauthorized bots, bots without flags, and inter-wiki bots. It does not include the use of scripts or semi-automated tools on a user's account. If the dispute is over a bot owner'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 (bots)===

===Approved pages (bots)===
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: