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

Rules
Different RfCs have been run in different ways, but there are a few hard and fast rules:


 * An RfC on administrator conduct MUST have the following in its structure:
 * A statement of the dispute, including an evidence section with diffs, and evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute.
 * A link to the noticeboard discussion showing consensus to open an RfC
 * A section for the subject's response.
 * A section for individual proposals from other editors.
 * A list of which editors endorse each of the above sections.


 * The following is NOT permitted:
 * Personal attacks—but remember that the sole purpose at RFC/ADMIN is to address user conduct issues, not article content.
 * Comments that are neither a view, proposed solution (if using Template:RFC boilerplate 2) nor an endorsement. (All of those comments and replies belong on the talk page.)
 * Disagreement endorsements, threaded rebuttals to endorsements, or "oppose view" sections. Partial endorsements ("I agree with the first paragraph") are acceptable and encouraged when appropriate. Opposition to views can be expressed on the talk page, or by creating and endorsing a new proposal.
 * Posting or linking to personal information about other editors, outside of specific exceptions named in policy. Disputes involving personal information are better suited for the Arbitration Committee.
 * Changing the text of other people's statements or views. To remove your own comment or links, it is preferable to use strike-through notation, like this, instead of deleting it.
 * RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process and may be met with sanctions.