Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Assistance

Moving draft RfCs into project space

moved from WT:RFC. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Many thanks in advance for any guidance in this. –Syncategoremata (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding my first RfC/U (currently in draft form

A few other notes; the certifiers need to show where they individually or together tried to resolve the same dispute in accordance with minimum requirements - this needs to be shown in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section. If at least 2 users have no satisfactorily demonstrated that minimum requirements have been met, that RfC/U ends up deleted 48 hours after it goes live (even if there has been a lot of input), so it's important to fill those sections out quite early on. The other point to note is

this rule which is generally pretty strict (if the RfC/U is to have much of a chance of working anyway). Generally one should avoid refactoring their views too much or adding/responding from their views too much. If any user has an issue with what someone else has said in their view, the response should be made in a section on the talk page. See how some other RfCs have been run in that regard - eg Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Mk5384. There's a lot of stuff to wrap ones head around even in the bits that I've written here and it might appear confusing, so if any further clarification is needed, please don't hesitate to ask. Hope it helps a little bit at least. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes that is very helpful, thank you! Is it acceptable to move discussion-type comments to the talk page? EyeSerene^talk 21:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. You may also fold, spindle, and mutilate your draft, if you choose, or declare that you are always going to wear your lucky clothes when editing it, or only work on it during your favorite phase of the moon. It's just a draft: there are no official procedures for writing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was more the decorum of moving around other editors' comments that I wanted to check. However, now you've given the green light I think I'll edit it exclusively in a cowboy hat and leopardskin thong while whistling La Marseillaise - why change the habits of a lifetime? EyeSerene^talk 21:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is about ready to post now - since it already has the minimum two certifications, can I post it directly into the Approved pages section? EyeSerene^talk 18:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Never mind, I've gone ahead and moved it. Thanks for your advice in preparing this RfC. EyeSerene^talk 07:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm trying to create a

Yes, he should not be editing the userspace draft (unless you authorise it); if he continues to do so without your authorisation, report it to

WP:ANI so an admin can explain to him why he needs to avoid editing the userspace, and should he still persist, then they can use their tools accordingly. However, I don't think (or at least, I hope) that he will not try to edit it again until the RfC/U is listed as a candidate RfC/U, or has become an active RfC/U (by which point, the RfC/U can no longer be in the userspace). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Slrubenstein

Not sure what I did wrong, or what I do to fix it.

It's listed now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I filed an RfC/U on a user, listed it as a Candidate page, and it has since been certified. Can I move it to the Certified section, or does someone else need to do that? The RfC/U in question is WP:Requests for comment/Tenmei. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certified so I've moved it. It's usually better to allow someone else to move it to certified; sometimes things are missed, or not in compliance with the requirements, and these may need to be addressed (or raised) on the RfC/U talk (despite the filer thinking it is all satisfied), but that said, it wouldn't be a crime to move it to certified one self (so long as the filers don't end up edit-warring when a dispute arises about whether it is, in fact, certified). Hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's basically what I figured. Ideally, I'll never have to file an RFC/U again, and so this information won't have been necessary...hope springs eternal. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question -- I think the RfC/U on Gwillhickers is certified and ready to go. Is it? Should I move it if no one else does? --Coemgenus 16:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm going to post a RFC. I've never done one before, and hopefully won't have to do one again. It's here (User:TehGrauniad/Sandbox1) for the moment, I'd be gratefull if someone could let me kow what they think. TehGrauniad (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple of formatting changes so you can understand the basic dynamics of how the certifying section should work. You may want to do some proofreading. Obviously, ask if J is willing to certify the dispute (after pasting/moving it to RfC/U space from sandbox, there'll only be 48 hours for certification otherwise it'll end up deleted). So there is a hurry after the RfC/U is posted live, but there is no hurry to post it live. So if you don't understand anything, best to ask before you open it (should you choose to do so); if that's the case, of if you have any general questions about the process, please feel free to ask. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ncmvocalist, thanks very much for your input on this and for helping with the formatting. Chris (aka) TehGrauniad (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a problem in it being certified. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This person is a former friend of the person behind the article in Wikipedia and is using Wikipedia as a tool to harass and retaliate against the person with his comments and by adding the page for deletion. Please read the thread - but we need help. If the page needs to be fixed please tell me what to do to make it adhere to the guidelines but the content had been approved prior to this person using Wikipedia for his own agenda. As soon as I posted this inital complain the page was slammed by three more notices and the editor was actually reverting my work as I was attempting to implement the items he said had to be changed. Please help. I have removed all personal quotes, I have removed anything from a press release, I included content that was objective and educational. This service is one that is reforming the legal industry, is free, providing advocacy and helping people.

See details below:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shpoonkle From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Wikipedia:Articles for deletion [edit] Shpoonkle

  Shpoonkle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  (Find sources: "Shpoonkle" – news • books • scholar • free images)

This website is relatively new and not very notable to have a Wikipedia article. Its Facebook page has less than 80 fans, so hardly anyone uses the website or even know about it or its founder. Almost all of the information in this article was added by the founder himself, User:Robgrantn, with no reliable sources. He even tried to create a Wikipedia article about himself and he is nowhere close to being notable enough for that, being just a 21-year-old law student from New York. The founder is my elementary school classmate and had the audacity of unfriending me on Facebook when I tried to help him improve the article. I know he worked hard with adding all that information, but the website is just not significant enough to have a Wikipedia article at this time. This article belongs more on a Law or Website Wiki like this one, not an encyclopedia. This is not the place to promote a new company. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

  Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
  Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.
  Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
  Delete per nomination, yet another non-notable web-based startup. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] RESPONSE Objectively, a former classmate who was "unfriended" on Facebook shouldn't qualify as the person recommending deletion of an article. This seems like a malicious attack over a bruised ego rather than an unbiased review of content. For the record, I submitted most of the content for the information on the page not Robert Niznik. If the site needs work, than I am happy to add or change what is required. The page had been approved and was growing and improving until your ego got bruised. This 21 year old, Robert Niznik was in the Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, and the Economist. He was most recently interviewed by NBC News about the PROCESS he has employed via vie Shpoonkle. The site is about promoting advocacy and the condition of the Legal Environment today and not an advertisement. The site and service has been in over 600 renowned international publications in less than ninety days. To my knowledge the amount of fans you have on Facebook should not and is not a criteria of notability. The website has over 2000 registered users and has thousands of page visits a day which is considered substantial. The article has citations from notable sources, its objective about the services offered, and also follows Wikipedia's guidelines. You actually wrote to Robert (see email below) telling him not to worry that the page just needed some clean up and would be fine. So because this person is no longer a Facebook friend your using your position with Wikipedia to have this article deleted? Not only is not ethical and a misuse of the fiduciary responsibilities Wikipedia has entrusted in you it is just plain wrong. The purpose of the article was not promotion of the company but to educate of a process and service that is FREE and trying to help people. This is the message you sent Robert Niznik on June 8th 2011 at 8:25: ___________________________________________________ Winson Thai June 8 at 8:25pm Report The article will NOT be deleted just because of the template. I put it there so you and the people who work for your company will know that it still needs a lot of work (heck, you did not even include a link to the site at the bottom of the page). Just keep improving the page and you can remove the template. No worries. _____________________________________________________________ We made the changes you suggested and then you marked it for deletion because he didn't want to be your Facebook Friend anymore? I am asking the Wikipedia community to help me stop people like this from using their personal agendas in this forum/site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierceenigma (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having had reason to look for the first time at this page due to a child challenging the truthfulness of another we found an untruth to be being perpetuated. I have tried to correct it and we are getting it corrected in the real world, but, who soever wrote the article for this website has removed what I have done, they are lying and it is provable. I re edited because it is incorrect information at the moment and has been while we have been gone in the South Pacific and other places. We will also be at the Historical society this December and will get the corrections made there. Please do not allow the page to display incorrect and untruthful information giving credit for others work to the wrong person who has been relishing in it for years. What do I do? What can I do? Reference Hawaiian Chieftain the real builder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthlessruth (talk • contribs) 21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that can be done about this, unless and until you can produce a proper

WP:Reliable source

that supports your claims. This is doubly important if your claims say anything about a living person.

I'm sorry about the inconvenience of this strict rule, but you have to remember that Wikipedia attracts not just people who are confused or misremember things, but sometimes outright liars, and to defend the encyclopedia against these malicious people, you and all of the other honest people have to go to some extra work. So there absolutely must be published, reliable sources that back up every bit of your claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a draft RFC/U at User:Nuujinn/direktor_rfcu, and would appreciate comments/guidance. I understand that I need at least one additional editor to certify the RFC/U, and I do not think that would be difficult. Is it appropriate for me to approach another editor, either one who was involved in a dispute with me and DIREKTOR, or one whom I know to have been involved a dispute with DIREKTOR in which I was not involved? And would it be appropriate for me to ask for help in the draft from editors who have not been involved in discussions with DIREKTOR for help in working on the draft? I expect this will take some time to get right, and I don't want to violate WP:CANVAS. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had reverted the good faith edit for the article on Patna University by providing a reliable reference. I also had added a justification for the same on its Talk:Patna University under the heading, Use of honorific.

However I observe that User:Sitush first issued a warning on my talk page, User talk:Arunbandana, then he removed this warning by simply saying sorry. Further he reverts my edit and responds to me on Talk:Patna University where his words are not polite by any means. This is not expected of a user/editor/administrator of Wikipedia.

I humbly request that the matter should be looked into seriously. I am quite confident of my point of view in this case but I can accept any other point of view if it is more convincing. More important than that is the way my point of view is being stifled here. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly read the first part, keep reading since it may seem like a normal discussion then turns into a random attack message to attack me personally. --Ronnie42

User:Swankytank said this to troll on my talk page --Ronnie42 (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC) "Hey friend... I just wanted to stop by and share a concern... it seems you're using talk pages, both those of articles as well as other users as discussion forums outside of the context of editing Wikipedia. That is not its intended use and could eventually result in administrative action. I certainly don't think it will come to that, and if it helps I could suggest a variety of general interest forums that might be of interest to you. Also, one other thing I wanted to bring up - I heard you got your sister pregnant. Is that true? If so it may be in violation of Wikipedia bylaws, and would need to be investigated by the proglamation commitentcy. Please let me know so I can prepare the necessary paperwork either way."[reply]

Which I believe is sick, twisted, trying to start arguments about thing's that I'm not doing on the website, attacking me in my own personal life about my family directly. --Ronnie42 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... well I'm pretty new here, but maybe I can help. I don't really understand what the problem is, and I see you've already started a discussion on your talk page. Let's go ahead and start over there and see if we can't just sort this whole darn thing right on out. --Stronger Than Paul (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking my sister, making false statements about her, clearly mentioned. This isn't funny! I'm taking this as a serious issue, I demand action be taken against the account, there is no reason to discuss this further. If it had been a problem about opinions related to wikipedia then yes but this is a direct attack at my family purpose, using the site as joke! I don't know if this User:Stronger Than Paul is pretending to be someone else since he doesn't exist on wiki but is clearly pretending to miss the obvious attacks. If there was any obvious changes it would be in the past history changes but it's still there, quoted word for word of what the memeber User:Swankytank, I find it uncomfortable that it's ok to pretend that it wasn't there or grossfully offensive! --Ronnie42 (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swankytank warned for personal attacks. If the user persists in attacks please let me know. --Jimminy Swiggles (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to file something at the Administrators' noticeboard for Incidents, but I noticed a discussion here already was started:

user:Swankytank has been harrassing user:Ronnie42 and has generally been a disruptive editor. As seen from the majority of Swankytank's edits, they consist of disruptive editting, and personal fueds with Ronnie42. The first attack seems to have been intiatied by Swankytank, see here: [1]. The fire seemed to have been settled on January 30th, when Swankytank stopped editting. He recently returned, replying to a comment on Ronnie42's on Talk:Dragon_Ball#Dragon_Ball_Hoshi with content that had nothing to do with the actual article topic, or talk discussion, post here: [2]. When I removed his irrelevent comment, he reverted my edit, [3] claiming what I did to be "repulsively rude and repugnant". Can something be done about this disruptive editor? He clearly isn't here to improve Wikipedia. || Tako (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can help me understand how I was harassing or trolling, or being disruptive at all. What about my comment met any of those definitions? You removed a comment for unknown reasons, twice and have been reverted by two separate editors now for violating talk page policy. Furthermuch, you haven't substantiated why my comment, which was intended to be helpful, was irrelevant. You aren't here to decided what does and doesn't merit inclusion on talk pages.

What's manymore - Ronnie and I had a dispute based on a misunderstanding for which I apologized. I also explained the misunderstanding to him as best I could and promised I will never text and edit Wikipedia at the same time ever again. I was warned (mistakenly, I think) for my error, but I have yet to receive an apology from Ronnie for his tone with me. --Swankytank (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I removed your comment based on

sockpuppet account of yours to further your 'dispute' with Ronnie42. || Tako (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The page

you referenced above contains guidelines for user contributions, not justifications for removal. I'm not sure why you've appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner, nor am I certain as to why you're so invested in this 'dispute'. You make a fairly direct accusation of sock puppetry, and frankly all I see is a user that made two edits completely unrelated to anything I (or Ronnie for that matter, as far as I can tell) have ever done, and then got scared off by Ronnie's own sock puppet accusation. When I look at you I see someone clearly protective of this user, a person that seems to know him personally - at the very least. Curious indeed. --Swankytank (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, Writegeist (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, anyone there?

Writegeist (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One can't really give specific answers tailed to particular circumstances if the circumstances aren't especially clear amongst the very general questions, but here's an attempt. The agreement between you and another editor has little bearing in terms of whether there is reason for you and the editor to avoid each other. If there is evidence of conduct issues between you and the other editor, then you should try an earlier step in dispute resolution or seek administrator intervention where appropriate. If another editor has already been involved in the same dispute and has tried to resolve the dispute (and failed), that editor can be a certifier. There is no specific figure as to diffs, but

canvassing. If you have not mentioned the other user specifically in the RfC/U, there is probably no reason to be notifying the other user; and the mention of that other user should be probably pretty relevant, recent, and needed for outlining the conduct concern. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I thought my questions were specific and not "very general", and I don't quite understand your last sentence, but thank you for your assistance. Additional comments from anyone else, preferably a sysop, would also be welcome. Writegeist (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist is something of an RFC specialist on the English Wikipedia. The fact that he's not a sysop is irrelevant. At least 90% of the sysops know less about RFCs than he does.

The last sentence is about your question, "What is a reasonable limit to the number of messages notifying other users of the RfC?" Ncmvocalist's answer is this: the only individual users he would notify of a new RFC/U are the ones that he was mentioning by name in the description of the dispute. This is a very conservative approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a full time job, and am concerned that an RFC/U[4] filed against me will become active and close during the work week, giving me very little time to respond. The editor filing has been developing a completely different RFC/U since March 2011[5] and what he has up now doesn't seem right: For example, his first attempt at dispute resolution has a diff to a note on mizabot configuration[6]. Could I please ask someone uninvolved and experienced to look over my response and make suggestions, so that it might be better able to weather my absence?

Unlike the filer, I'm new to the dispute resolution process. The filer has been through arbcom, and has an interaction ban. Until recently, I hadn't even been written up at AN3. (Same filer, by the way.) BitterGrey (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare for an RfC/U to close within a week, but it's best to leave a note in your response section (quite visibly) that you are away - specifying exact periods of absence where possible so that attempts are made to cater for that. In terms of your response, you have sustantially made a complaint about one of the certifiers/filers; it's important you also address what he has raised specifically against you. More importantly, even where you might have reason to believe the actual desired outcome is different to the stated desired outcome, you should address both. Obviously, at present you have addressed what you believe is the actual desired outcome by one of the three certifiers; you should address the stated desired outcome too (if need be, assume it is written by someone else). Others will look at what is written before commenting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The new BLP@ANI (used to justify deleting part of my response) took up the evening, but I hope to be able to use your suggestions tomorrow. I'm a bit concerned that it might be nearing a tl|dr point. BitterGrey (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, beware of TL:DR in any case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My response is being edited by those making accusations against me[7][8] and making ambiguous legal threats[9]. Is there is no place, not even here, that I can mount a uncensored defense?

I'll remind all that I'm an amature: I work for a living in an unrelated, full-time job. I'm not here to advance my profession. I haven't made a dime off of my efforts on Wikipedia, and don't ever expect to. I also can't spend all day, every day rubbing elbows and trading influence. For the past year, I've gotten nothing from my efforts on Wikipedia but strife, grief, and marginalization. There was always the hope that perhaps some forum would end the Wikihounding. Perhaps that hope was misplaced, because Wikipedia has become a corrupt travesty. I would still like to believe otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittergrey (talk • contribs) 2012-07-29T19:44:09‎

CheckUser requested Reporting myself as a test, I cant find anywhere that tells you the codes and syntax to use for a RFC user, I have found the article RFU syntax but dont know what to include to make it user syntax {}

I and another editor are preparing a draft RFCU, which is to go live in a short while. Naturally enough the subject of the draft is watching what's going on, but is now encouraging other editors to spring to his defence in the draft. I think that the proper time for this is after the draft stage, but it seems a bit rude to just delete the comments.--Pete (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contacted more than once regarding an editor whom others believe, I think not unreasonably, merits and RfC/U. Unfortunately, I am myself unsure exactly of the application of specific details. The procedure indicates that at least two editors have to have discussed a matter of conduct with the editor about whom the RfC/U is to be filed. The editor in question is currently blocked for edit warring, and I believe that they have had previous discussions regarding edit warring in general with other users, but the editor in question rarely if ever seeks to engage in conversation on the talk page, to allow more than one editor to discuss with them the conduct there. I guess my question is how specific is the requirement for two editors discussing the same matter with the proposed subject of the RfC/U? Is it theoretically limited to actions on a specific topic, or would discussion regarding the same type of behavior by separate editors, potentially regarding different topics, also be sufficient to allow multiple individuals to sign on to the draft RfC? John Carter (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have started a draft RfC/U at a sandbox page, and have received some help from other editors involved in the dispute at various times. I am not sure how to organize it, as it includes a number of incidents, and I feel I might have too many links. I also am not entirely sure I have selected the most obvious attempts at reconciliation; another editor has included a number from less-recent history that I was not involved in.

Any help in sorting this out would be appreciated.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Purplebackpack89/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert

Is this on the right track? Is all I'm missing a second guy?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Appendix: the previous reporting of the problem.

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

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 text<nowiki>Insert formatted text here

1. DIRECT [[^[1]]]

</nowiki> ===

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)[reply]

The IP's first post - in a new section, before anyone had commented at all: "please-please your comments must be reasonable". [14] The IP's third post, after perfectly polite responses: "...please don't pretend that such statistics are not concern to this article." [15] 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 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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

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 ^{(talk ☞)} 18:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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, 洗腦 (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)[reply]

Hi, we've filed a new RfC/U on 27-Jan ([16])... 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 (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Robert McClenon, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]