Today: Monday 2 August 2021 , 12:09 am


advertisment
search




Requests for comment User conduct Assistance

Last updated 11 hour , 58 minute 108 Views

Advertisement
In this page talks about ( Requests for comment User conduct Assistance ) It was sent to us on 01/08/2021 and was presented on 01/08/2021 and the last update on this page on 01/08/2021

Your Comment


Enter code
  {{historicalcomment=
The RFC/U process has been discontinued as a result of .
Other dispute resolution processes should be used for conduct issues.brief=yes

RFC/U Assistance

Moving draft RfCs into project space

moved from WT:RFC. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, not sure where else to take this question so I'm sticking it here, feel free to reply here or on my talk page.
I've drafted a user conduct RfC in my userspace which I will likely be taking "live" in the very near future, though I'm actually still hoping to avoid that. The precise procedure for this does not seem to be described (taking a draft RfC live), though I'm assuming the best route is to simply move the page from my userspace into WP space which is easy enough. However I don't have the full formatting in the draft RfC as I removed the section at the top that includes the "this RfC began on, the current time" information (since it presumably would not have been accurate). If and when I move the page I want to make sure the formatting is correct but that's definitely not the kind of thing in which I have expertise. I could also simply copy and paste the content into a generated RfC form but presumably that's a licensing problem easily avoided. Just looking for a little guidance here so if someone wiser than I in these matters can drop a note I'd be much obliged. --Bigtimepeace talk contribs 00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC
To avoid any doubts, it is better to start up a fresh RfC/U in the project space, and replace the contents of the "Statement of the dispute" section with the text you wrote at User:Bigtimepeace/DraftRFC#Statement_of_the_dispute. The same goes for other parties (or non-parties) who are using draft work in their final version. However, where possible, it is better to avoid signing with a timestamp until you are actually certifying the RfC or endorsing a view in the actual "live version" of the RfC/U. Hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I've done as you suggested, and apologies for putting my original question in the wrong place. --Bigtimepeace talk contribs 19:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sub-pages for an RfC/U

I am in the final stages of drafting an RfC/U and the associated evidence is currently divided out into sub-pages.
  1. Would there be any strong reason not to keep this arrangement when creating the actual RfC/U?
  2. Should I move all the evidence pages to be sub-pages of the actual RfC/U or would it be okay to leave some of the auxiliary ones as user pages?
The draft is at User:Syncategoremata/Draft with the main evidence page as a subpage at User:Syncategoremata/Draft/Evidence.
Many thanks in advance for any guidance in this. –Syncategoremata (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and raised this as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 with two subpages: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Recent evidence.
If anyone has an objection to this use of subpages, I will try and re-organise the material to accommodate that.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

First RfC...would like some guidance

This is my first RfC/U and I want to make sure I'm (1) doing it according to the guidelines, and (2) writing it in the clearest way possible. Currently has over 20 diffs. Too much? User:Noraft/Sandbox/5. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 17:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Get rid of the following numbered diffs: 1, 6, 10, 19, 20. You probably should add sections about certifying the dispute, desired outcome, etc. Of the 19 diffs you would have left, you could probably move 2 or 3 of these into the "evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" and another 2 or 3 into "evidence of failing to resolve the dispute" sections (use the proper template) - that would cut your diff count also. If you have any (further) queries, be it about this or something else on the RfC/U process, please don't hesitate to ask. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Have followed your suggestions and updated. How does it look now? Once it looks decent, I'll have other editors write certifying statements, then move it to project space. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Guidance request

Regarding my first RfC/U (currently in draft form here), to what extent is it permissible to contact other editors for input? I'm aware of editors that might like to comment (and in one case have been named in the evidence section), but I'm not sure how (or if) WP:CANVASS applies. Thanks,
b
p
20:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about inviting editors to the drafting process

See this question at AN/I by User:YuMaNuMa about a draft RfCU that has come out of that AN/I discussion: "Can someone inform me whether inviting other editors to RfC/U constitutes canvassing? My aim is settle issues regarding Cantaloupe once and for all and the best way to do this is to invite others to share their opinions about his editing style and perhaps shed some light on why so many editors are discontent." I figure this might also be a good place to ask that question. Here's the draft RfCU, for reference: User:Dreamyshade/RFCU (in very early stages). Dreamyshade (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think my first RFC/U is ready for candidacy

I have read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance, perused through the archive and done my best to draft an RFC/U at my sandbox - User:MezzoMezzo/sandbox. I would like some feedback here from more experienced users - is it ready for candidacy, or is there still more to be done? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

How to tell an editor, that he should not delete against wikipedia rule

the rule is: "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."
The user pluto2012 is consistently deleting lot of my contributions, because of supposedly NPOV, due weight, irrelevant etc. If I revert it, than he and his friends are re-deleting it. It is hardly worth for me to edit, when I know in advance that it will be deleted.
I have told him that he can not delete objective (in my opinion) well supported and concise against this rule, but it does not help.
He repeatedly blame me with acting against the consensus. It does not help to quote "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority."
I am not looking for punishment, but rather to tell him to obey the rule.
I am not sure about the 2 editors that should talk with him. Ykantor (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Appendix: the previous reporting of the problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_41#a_section_was_deleted.2C_which_is_Vandalism_and_offending_NPOV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_73#1948_Arab.E2.80.93Israeli_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2013_June_25#is_it_permitted_to_restore_a_dispute_resolution_noticeboard_issue.2C_which_was_auto_archived http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War#Help_desk_question_about_dispute_resolution curl 'https://www.facebook.com/soyauyau/media_set?set=a.1901866339156.103786.1016636562&type=3' -H ':host: www.facebook.com' -H 'non-accept-encoding: gzip,deflate,sdch' -H 'accept-language: zh-TW,zh;q=0.8,en-US;q=0.6,en;q=0.4' -H 'user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/28.0.1500.71 Safari/537.36' -H ':path: /soyauyau/media_set?set=a.1901866339156.103786.1016636562&type=3' -H 'accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8' -H ':version: HTTP/1.1' -H 'cache-control: max-age=0' -H 'cookie: c_user=none; csm=2; datr=4BnjUWQpecvFTxZMrjprfEa8; fr=0g1GiYtJIMrePlGPs.AWXLQ05CK3aBzfsAgDoirBRRI7s.BR4xsx.Zw.AAA.AWWZy16k; lu=Rhp86IBMkGsTHfQNJ6O5JBMw; s=Aa7GwjvCvdjFex89.BR4xsx; xs=61%3A1L07Ot3DBcEvvg%3A2%3A1373838129; act=1373838130815%2F0; sub=268435456; p=78; presence=EM373838995EuserFA21B05874131212A2EstateFDsb2F0Et2F_5b_5dElm2FnullEuct2F1373837533BEtrFnullEtwF721990174EatF1373838897132G373838995779CEchFDp_5f1B05874131212F1CC; wd=1280x453' -H ':scheme: https' -H 'pass: https://www.facebook.com/soyauyau/media_set?set=a.1901866339156.103786.1016636562&type=3' -H ':method: DELETE' --compressed
=== Heading textInsert formatted text here
  • DIRECT Target page name
  • ===

    What is the current consensus on disagreement endorsements?


    I've read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Rules, and I see there that "disagreement endorsements" are not supposed to be part of an RfC/U. I've also noticed, however, that some (a minority) of recent request pages have been formatted with separate sections for "support" and "oppose" following each view. So I'd like to ask what the current consensus about that really is, and where it might have last been discussed. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

    Behavior of some Users against me

    Hello everyone. As all normal users in this project I am here to make Wikipedia better. However, today I have been personaly attacked by some users without any normal reason. In the talk page of the article
    Atheism I made some suggestions, the link is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atheism#Some_very_interesting_and_very_important_statistics.
    There during discussion, the User User:AndyTheGrump wrote the follow:
    You will find that you are more likely to get a reasonable response to your comments if you show some manners.
    You can read all my words in that talk page:
    I did not violate any of Wikipedia Rules. After his words about my manners, I asked him to not teach me manners as long as i never show bad manners. But instead to discuss the question, he began to discuss my behaviour in an very abusive way, called me someone who doesn't have manners. Why? I did not abused anyone in that discussion. We have rules in wiki, its called Wikipedia:No personal attacks. And there is golden rule in it: Comment on content, not on the contributor. But this is not the end of story. After all, 2 other Users again discused my behaviour, and someone even wrote that my words show extremely poor manners. But you can read the whole topic: I never abused anyone, after User:AndyTheGrump remark, I just asked him to not teach me about manners. And also I asked anyone to act according Wikipedia Rules. Since when asking to act according to Rules is something abusive? But 3 of Users began to discuss my personality, and even did not hesitate to respond normally to my suggestions !! And what does it mean you have extremely poor manners? Just because I offer them to not violated the Rules? Just because I asked them to make reasonable responds? Where is the golden rule Comment on content, not on the contributor. I was feeling me there like an student among very aggresive teachers who try to teach me manners, instead to discuss the topic. Look at their unreason answers !!
    Please comment about some Users conduct against me, as long s nobody have right to abuse me and my personality without any reason. And if this is wrong address to write about this issue, please direct me to where to go about my problem. Thanks in advance. 46.71.203.2 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    The IP's first post - in a new section, before anyone had commented at all: "please-please your comments must be reasonable". The IP's third post, after perfectly polite responses: "...please don't pretend that such statistics are not concern to this article." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism&diff=567804592&oldid=567803276 The IP starts off by suggesting that responses may not be 'reasonable' before anyone has responded at all, and then goes on to accuse people of 'pretending'. I'd say that 'poor manners' sums it up nicely. AndyTheGrump (User talk:AndyTheGrumptalk) 20:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    The offer to make reasonable responces are the request of Wikipedia Rules. Otherwise anyone can write here anything he (she) wants without any base, and instead to be an Encyclopedia, it will become something unscientific. This is just very simple rule. Since when reminding of the rules become a bad behaviour? And 3 Users began to call me the man who has very poor manners! Just because I reminded them the Rules? And what is most interesting, they really did not make any normal comment to 1 of my suggestions (I mean suggestion about including Gallup's reserch in the artilce). So my reminding,unfortunatelly, was right. I feel myself very abused, because I am an adult man, and I did not give to anyone the right teach me the manners in a such way and call me using very bad words. The only reason I am here is making the Wikipedia better.46.71.203.2 (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    46, this page isn't really about complaints about how someone else is treating you. It's about how to construct a formal process for commenting on an editor. If you feel strongly that you are being treated unfairly, there is WP:ANI, but I would advise you to just shrug it off, because lots of other editors (including me) are now commenting at Talk:Atheism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    Dear User Tryptofish, OK, Thank you. 46.71.203.2 (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    New draft Rfc

    Hi. I am drafting a new RfC, although I have not yet decided whether to submit it. I will take a little time to decide if I really want to go through this laborious process. I created a new subpage of my sandbox to draft it, which has been tagged for speedy deletion. Not sure why. Well--that was fast, already moved. Apparently it is now here while it lasts. What should I add or subtract?
    ElijahBosley User talk:ElijahBosley(talk ☞) 18:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    No responses. No help. Not a big priority for other editors, I gather. On reflection, I think either an admin. blocks an abusive editor for profanity, or doesn't. This RfC process reminds one of Chinese communist reeducation, æ´—è…¦ (xǐ năo, literally "wash brain"). Having a group of people sit around in a circle remarking about one's ideological purity does nothing, did nothing even in China. An RfC by its own admission is pointless, for being without consequence. cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/HiLo48 And it is minutes and hours subtracted from one's life we will never get back. It distracts from the more constructive enterprise of editing Wikipedia. So I say, heck with it.ElijahBosley''' (talk ☞) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

    New RfC/U submitted, no response yet

    Hi, we've filed a new RfC/U on 27-Jan (I've followed the instructions very closely and looked at a couple of cases in the archives; as far as I can see, we did everything right. However, there's no response yet. Could you give any advice on what to do? Cheers, --Mallexikon (User talk:Mallexikontalk) 06:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

    RfC needing review

    Curiously, in all the years I've been editing wikipedia, I've never raised an Rfc before, and the subject in question may seem trivial to some people, but I don't see how else to resolve it. I would therefore be very grateful if someone with more experience of this procedure could have a look at the text in User:Deb/sandbox and let me know what they think. Thanks. Deb (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    Didn't get any comments on this, so I've now raised the Rfc. Cheers to anyone who may have looked at it. Deb (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

    Requesting assistance with an RfC/U draft

    I'm working an RfC/U at: User:Harmelodix/draft. I could use some advice and/or pointers, as this is the first one I've done, and I am not sure if it's coming together properly. I would appreciate any help that editors are willing to offer. Harmelodix (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    , I see your name around these discussion a lot, and I wonder if you would be willing to take a look at my RfC/U draft and give me some suggestions? Harmelodix (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

    Roger Hayworth

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth
    I feel the conduct is unhelpful to new users. When I started all those years ago, the Roaring Beach page was pretty basic, and I felt welcome, many people on this page express unhappiness. What should I do, I am having a breakdown over many issues in my past, and have been trying to get a significant important and connected Timorese lfbabo to use the wiki. But am very time poor. Is it just my problem?
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsainsbu (talk • contribs) 18:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

    Is the subject of an RFC/U permitted to contact two users to certify their response to the allegations?

    Are the subjects of an RFC/U allowed the same courtesy of contacting two users to certify their response in the same manner as the user who initiated the RFC/U? Of course, being careful to not canvass. Atsme☯Consult 16:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
     
    Comments

    There are no Comments yet

    last seen
    Most vists