Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList

Downside of this approach (apart from it being harder to edit the page) is that it excludes the admin section, which particularly for transcluding at WP:AN doesn't seem right. In addition, something more like template:cent might be more visible at AN. It would need updating separately, but it might be worth it. Rd232 ^talk 15:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get section edit links that make it very easy to edit. Is that something I've added to my interface, or isn't it available by default? If need be can't we add an edit link to the page to make it really easy to edit? The admin RFC's were not excluded intentionally. Let's reword the page so that they can be included! Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's better (and AFAIK the section edit links are universal). It's still more of a pain than the old way though because the link to the List in the wikitext has to be copied and pasted to get to the list; but the sort of contributors creating RFC/Us should get it, and be able to ask for help if not. Still, something template:cent-style might work better at WP:AN; but this is already a big step in the right direction. Rd232 ^talk 15:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TOC bloat[edit]

Can we reduce the number of subheads to help shorten the Table of Contents on the target pages? Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be done in a way that it is still very-simple for parties to list their dispute in the correct section at any given time, sure. Note also that AN/ANI is secondary; the headings need to work well for the primary page it appears on - WP:RFCU. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is bloating the AN table of contents. Can't see how to fix that without losing the headings here. Really, I'd go for template:cent-style at WP:AN, even at the expense of having two places to list pages. Transcluding the template here too will make it pretty clear if anything's missed. Rd232 ^talk 17:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Perhaps SignPost (I think that's what it's called) should cover a segment on it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the trouble is the signpost is weekly; I don't think that fits very well with RFC/U schedules - certainly initially, since they have 48 hrs to be certified. Rd232 ^talk 20:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done {{RFCUlist}} and added to WP:AN's header. Should perhaps be at WP:ANI? Rd232 ^talk 20:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good solution. Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we delete these templates now? We don't need two templates, and {{RFCUlist}} is preferable for transclusion elsewhere. Rd232 ^talk 10:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case descriptions[edit]

I think it's import to make it clear that the case descriptions are charges which are not actually true. (I can't see how we can avoid that, since it's one job of the RfC to determine whether the charge is true.) It may be enough to add one sentence at the beginning of the page, but I a haven't found a suitable formulation. Hans Adler 17:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The filing party's perception of what the problem is? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Now that this page is working, would it be unwise (vis-a-vis canvassing) to transclude it to user talk pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Segregation[edit]

I don't see a need to segregate users, bots, and admins. Especially since the latter two are so rare (so they just take up vertical space at ANI while empty). I've boldly changed it so only this page is transcluded. –xeno^talk 12:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have boldly turned the other two pages into redirects so that nothing can get lost by someone accidentally putting an admin or bot RfC on one of those pages. Hans Adler 12:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. –xeno^talk 13:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only advantage I can think of to having them segregated is that some people don't care about random user RFCs and won't watch the combined page on the off chance that someone ever does file a bot RFC. OTOH, issues with bots tend to be brought up at WP:BON, and at WP:ANI for cases where an immediate bot block is desired; maybe the instructions for bots should be changed to just recommend people do that.

BTW, your instructions probably need updating. Anomie ⚔ 14:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

I've tried to keep this page neutral - there's nothing worse than a conviction here with a link to the trial. But, for the first time, I've been reverted, back to an extremely POV version that convicts the people named (people will comment on the RFC with the sentence they've just read in mind). The implications are horrible. I'm not willing to edit war with the reverter, but I'd like someone else to look at this and revert it, for the good of Wikipedia. 80.176.233.6 (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be my revert he's talking about. I am new to this as well, but it was my impression you can't alter or touch an RfC once users have endorsed it. The edits by the anon appeared to be doing that. I could be wrong. -OberRanks (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is you (I'm sorry, I'm not 100% confident with Wikipedia - but getting there). Yes, as far as I know, you must not edit an RFC accusation when it has been posted (the page tells you not too) but that's the RFC page. This is a signpost to tell people to go and comment on the RFC. Having that signpost say "this person is guilty of this. They did this. This unsigned, unattributed message on the top of many noticeboards tells you that this person is already guilty. Got to this link and vote them out of the Wikipedia house" is very very bad. It makes RFCs into show trials. Everywhere else on Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, although people argue loudly that it shouldn't be and will revert an anon like me for saying so, but this is clearly one area that *must* be neutral. Sentence first, verdict later? Off with their heads! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.233.6 (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs rairly result in head chopping. More hand slapping than anything. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. The signpost can be altered, but the true substance of the RFC cannot. As I said, this is the very first RFC I have ever been involved in. Thanks for pointing that out. -OberRanks (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Glad this was resolved without needless escalation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off with their heads[edit]

A reminder to people listing their fellow editors on this page: it's not a page intended for you to muck rake, it's a page to simply and neutrally inform others of the RfC you've launched. Sending people to that RfC with your damaging summary ringing in their ears is a *bad* thing - it invalidates the very RfC that you're trying to stack. So please, please neutralise your words before clicking "save". 80.176.233.6 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certification[edit]

Once two editors involved in the dispute have endorsed the RfC/U, do we need to manually edit the User conduct/UsersList to move the RfC from the "Candidate pages" section to the "Certified pages" section, or is this something that either a bot or an Admin will/should do? Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's manual, but it's best practice to leave it; another editor usually looks at it and is probably in a better position to be sure that the certification requirements have been complied with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]