Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive

split this monstrosity
I see this was suggested above but never done. I think older discussions should be moved to subpages linked from the main page, as is done on pretty ,much every other page like this. Any objections? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, per WP:SILENCE I am going to create archives and begin moving older discussions into them. I'm thinking the first one will be all the unformatted stuff from the bottom of the list, then the rest split by year, leaving only 2012 and 2013, with the idea that each year be archived no earlier than July of the next year so more recent discussions are still very easy to find. While I'm at it this page could stand to be archived as well... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

listing the certifiers
This was mentioned way back in 2006 when the table was introduced and I think, if anyone is paying attention, that it might be worth discussing again. What is the reasoning behind listing the certifiers? If a user is curious about who it was they can easily click the link and see, and doing the formatting for th etable is annoying enough without it. I propose that a cut-off date be established and that after that date we start a new table that does not require this parameter. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You know what, I've got one to archive right now, I don't want to do the extra part that is a pain in the ass, and I don't believe a consensus was ever established to require this field in the first place. Since it seems like nobody is watching this page anyway I am changing the format right now so that the certifier's names are no longer a required field. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Usefulness
I'm surprised to see the relatively few cases listed here and was wondering if this was still an active area of Wikipedia. Are people bypassing RfU and just going straight to ANI now? Might this be a duplication of effort that is part and parcel of any bureaucracy? Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)