Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Assistance

This is part of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (RFC/U) process, a major step in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. It exists to help users who are having difficulty in creating an RfC/U, and ensure that applicable rules and guidelines are being properly followed up until it is closed. Alternatively, this may direct such users to the right venue or pages. Uninvolved users are encouraged to give their perspective, advice, offer informal mediation, or refer to an appropriate noticeboard where appropriate. IMPORTANT: Read the overview and instructions before posting here.

Search this page and its archives

{{Requests for comment/User conduct/Assistance/Archive navbox}}

Overview

• This is a venue where established users can help parties create an RfC/U, and ensure that applicable rules and guidelines are being properly followed up until it is closed.
• Input will only be provided in terms of how to present the RfC/U and ensuring rules and guidelines are followed within the RfC/U.
• Remember that this is NOT a venue for mediating disputes that exist outside of RfC/U, or for imposing blocks, bans or binding disciplinary measures for actions taken outside of RfC/U.
• Keep in mind that RfC/U is a non-binding, informal process, and can:
  • Allow a number of users to collaborate in discussing wider issues they see with a particular editor's behavior
  • Allow an editor who is the subject of an RFC/U to understand the problems, and change or explain their behavior.
  • Allow users to share information which might be relevant for later steps in the dispute resolution process, should that become necessary.
• Generally, see also the dispute resolution process and the helpful advice found here.

Instructions for posting

Before posting, ensure that you have read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance.

This page is not formally monitored; all helpers are volunteers and it may take some time to receive a response. If the circumstances change since your original posting (or you have reported it elsewhere) then please update your alert accordingly.

How to post:

• Be sure to post at the bottom of the page — Click here to start a new section
• A simple explanation of the issue/doubt is sufficient, unless another editor requests for more clarity. Note down any involved editors and parties, as well as the page(s) potentially affected, such as a link to your RFC/U or draft RFC/U (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance#Preparation on how to make a draft). When referring to actions that have been taken on already-created pages, please use diffs. (A guide to creating diffs is here).
• Remember to describe the problem or issue as neutrally as possible. Avoid emotional content that could lead to unnecessary escalation or continuance of the dispute on this page, both of which are to be avoided.
• Be sure to sign your post by using ~~~~ or the signature button in the edit bar.

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, EyeSerene^talk 18:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally, the circumstances for contacting others (with re: to draft) is limited. Potential certifiers should be contacted so that the drafting can take place together (though if it were a case where it was canvassing under the guise of shopping for another certifier, canvass policy would be enforced) - generally you should have found a certifier before drafting (which you appear to have done in this case anyway). Additionally, you can contact those who have been mentioned in the "Statement of the dispute" section to clarify whether they are happy (or not) with what has been said about them (be it what they did or they said) - if they set the record straight, the certifiers can then redraft the relevant parts of the RfC/U if they wish prior to creating the live "final" version; certifiers may also elect not to contact those until the RfC/U has gone live where those usersu can set the record straight in their own statement/view. In regards to other (general) comments however, this should not happen during the drafting phase - it should only be done after the RfC/U becomes active - at that point, any user involved in the dispute and any users who have commented on the dispute in previous stages (eg; mediation, WQA) may be invited to comment.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

User:Jimmy McDaniels

Hello,

I'm trying to create a draft in my user space, but the subject keeps editing it after being requested to desist. Could I have some assistance please? Yworo (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

RFC/U not listed

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

Not sure what I did wrong, or what I do to fix it. Noloop (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Moving to certified?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Help with RfC

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)

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)

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)

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

Non productive edits and use of position to harass for personal agenda

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)

Correct and Truthful inofrmatio that has purposely been omitted for the last 24 years

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)

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

Draft RFC/U on DIREKTOR

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)

The Conduct of User:Sitush

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)

Asking for advice

If attempts at resolving the problems with a user's behaviour should fail, I may want to proceed to an RfC/U. The problematic behaviour includes countless abusive, attacking and belittling edit summaries, habitual misrepresentations and abuses of policy, tendentious and disruptive edits, misrepresentations of other users' comments, attempts to intimidate other users, and briefing perceived allies on how to attack the user's perceived enemies at the noticeboards with meretricious reports - in short, bully tactics that make encounters with this user deeply unpleasant for a great number of users.

Question re. attempts to resolve the problems:

• The RFCC "Minimum requirements" section stipulates: Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". Suppose there is a longstanding agreement between myself and the user in question to refrain from posting to each other's talk pages: what would be an acceptable way to proceed?

Questions to do with filing an RfC/U correctly and notifying other users:

• Number of diffs: is there a figure that should not be exceeded?
• Owing to the volume of the user's problematic posts, there has been interaction with many, many other users. What is a reasonable limit to the number of messages notifying other users of the RfC?
• In the RfC, is it permitted to include reference to a previous RfC on the same user, and to include the reviewing admin's findings and restrictions?

Finally:

• Given the nature of the problems at issue, is the dispute resolution process the correct course? I quite like the idea of an RfC/U because it airs the problematic behaviour and it's also, ultimately, a toothless tiger (in general, I don't much care for blocks except for vandalism); but I'm open to alternatives if you can suggest any.

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

Advice while I still have time to use it?

I have a full time job, and am concerned that an RFC/U[1] 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[2] 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[3]. 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)