User:The Wordsmith/Requests for comment/Administrator conduct/Guidance

Are you in the right place?
A request for comment on Administrator conduct (an RfC/ADMIN) is for discussing specific users who have violated Administrative policies and guidelines. Carefully read the following before filing an RfC.


 * Disputes over the writing of articles, including disputes over how best to follow the NPOV policy, belong at the article talkpage or an appropriate noticeboard.
 * For feedback on your own activity at Wikipedia, you might try Administrators' Noticeboard.
 * Generally, see the dispute resolution process and its helpful advice about dealing with disruptive editors.
 * If you would like to get one-to-one advice, feedback or counseling from another editor, then you should consider visiting the Teahouse.

The nature of RfC/U

 * An RfC is a tool for developing and formalizing community consensus.
 * An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration.
 * See also RfC/ADMIN rules.

Qualification

 * An RfC/ADMIN must be certified in the way outlined at Requests for comment/Administrator conduct.
 * If the proposal to begin an RFC/ADMIN has not yet been closed, you may wish to create a draft in your own user space that you may jointly work on. This will help frame the dispute in a way that will get to the heart of the issue.
 * Note that the RfC/ADMIN process is generally used to solve intractable issues. Before asking for one at a noticeboard, you should make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue amicably such as discussing the problem on the user's talkpage or other appropriate location.

Preparation

 * Collect any data or notes you're likely to need.
 * Consider creating a draft first. To do this, create a page in your userspace (eg User:Example/draft), and add Userspace RFC draft.
 * You might also want to read some suggestions on how to present an RfC case.

Creation

 * Requests for comment/Administrator conduct/Creation

Listing

 * Once you've created the RFC/ADMIN page, list it in the appropriate Candidate Pages section of Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList.
 * Users who are the subject of an RfC should be notified on their talk page. This may be done with the template .
 * A notification should also be placed in a new thread at Administrators' Noticeboard, as well as the original thread requesting an RFC/ADMIN.
 * Candidate pages need an uninvolved administrator to certify the RfC. Those that don't meet this criterion should be delisted, and marked for speedy deletion with the db-maintenance tag.
 * Once a request has been certified, it should be moved from the "Candidate pages" section to the "Certified pages" section of Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList.

Conduct during an RfC/ADMIN
Requests for comment/Administrator conduct/Rules

Guidelines
Once a User Conduct RfC has been opened and certified, other editors can take a look and offer comments, either by posting their own view, or endorsing someone else's view.

The following represents the guidelines formed by general practice. These are not policies or "rules", but advice on how most RfCs are run:
 * Anyone, including those who wrote the original RfC, is allowed to post their own view, in a separate section with their name on it, such as ==View by == It can be helpful to indicate the viewpoint of the particular editor, such as "Outside view" "Inside view" "Semi-involved view" etc.
 * In most cases those who brought the RfC do not post individualized views, since the initial statement already indicates their thoughts, but in some cases they may wish to post an additional individualized view to clarify their opinion. Either method is acceptable.
 * Other users can endorse a view, by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.
 * All signed comments and talk that are neither a view nor an endorsement should be directed to the discussion page.
 * Any other types of discussion should be directed to the talkpage.
 * Anyone can endorse any view, regardless of whether or not they are outside parties, inside parties, or even the subject of the RfC. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse.
 * You may endorse as many views as you wish. You may also endorse the original RfC statement, and/or the subject's response.
 * Only endorse views with which you agree. Do not post "disagreement" endorsements. The lack of a signature is sufficient indication that there may be some disagreement with the statement.

For more information on how previous RfCs have been run, see Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive.

If you're the subject of an RFC/U
Don't react emotionally or in haste. There's no getting away from it: being the subject of an RfC/U is usually unpleasant. By definition, you've already been in one or more disputes with the user or users, and now things have escalated—and perhaps you think that they're the ones who should be the subject of an RfC/U! Well, perhaps. Take a deep breath and follow these directions.

Uncertified RfC/U

 * If the RfC/U is uncertified, you don't really need to do anything. A brief, reasoned, calming response, or a pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere may be helpful; but there's no need to start preparing a point-by-point refutation if you don't expect any other users to certify the dispute. Remember uncertified RFC/Us are deleted after 48 hours.

Certified RfC/U

 * If an RfC/U has been certified, you should make an effort to respond constructively and calmly. Don't attack or find fault with other users (especially any outside observers), and do respond to the substance of the dispute. If there are many examples of a supposed problem, don't try to prepare a point-by-point refutation of each one - a few will do.
 * Admit fault where appropriate. (To err is human.) Promise not to do it again, and the problem's probably solved.
 * If necessary, suggest some outcomes that might be helpful to ongoing content disputes, or that might help show that you are committed to co-operating with others (eg limiting yourself to talk page comments on an article, for a limited period).
 * If an RfC/U has been certified and you don't engage with the substance of the dispute within a reasonable period of time, and if the dispute remains ongoing, then the matter may be taken forward to other dispute resolution processes, including mediation, arbitration and Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. You are not officially required to participate in an RfC/U; however, failing to participate constructively comes at a steep cost, because it is typical for this failure to be held against you in all future dispute resolution forums.
 * Don't retaliate by attempting to open an RfC/U against others. Even if it is justified, now is probably not the time, and you are probably not the person to do it. The existing RfC/U, although nominally identifying you as the subject, is a proper forum to discuss and scrutinize the behavior of all the people involved in that specific dispute, not just the one editor whose name is at the top of the RfC/U page.  If you're considering doing this (e.g., for a separate dispute involving some of the same people) whilst an RfC/U against you is open or shortly after it's closed, ask whether it's a good idea at the Requests for comment/User conduct/Assistance.
 * Don't think that a temporary disappearance will end the discussion. There is no deadline for resolving disputes, and RfC/U pages can be put on hold if the subject is unavailable for any reason.