Wikibooks talk:Dispute resolution/Mock RfC

This is just a mock example of what a possible Wikibooks RfC could look like.

''Obviously this is just a mockup of what a RfC could look like. Nothing within this mock RfC actually happened, and all users are made up parties. It wouldn't have to be exactly like this, but this is just a suggestion:''

User conduct
In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, the person(s) complaining must provide evidence of their efforts to resolve the dispute, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: , 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (Example user | talk | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

User:Example user consistently uses personal attacks against fellow editors.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

On the module Jokebook, Example user repeatedly called User:Foo and User:Bar "gay", "a faggot", "retards", and a "motherfucker". User:Example user also said User:Foo should go choke on a sausage and die.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * (Diff to Example user calling Foo "gay")
 * (Diff to Example user calling Bar a "faggot")
 * (Diff to Example user calling Foo and Bar "retards")
 * (Diff to Example user calling Bar a "motherfucker")

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * (Diff from Talk:Jokebook asking Example user to stop)
 * (Diff to User talk:Example user asking him or her to stop)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~ )
 * User:Foo
 * User:Bar
 * User:Third party

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Heck yes he did! User:NapoleonDynamite
 * Personal attacks are not acceptable. User:DuckSoup

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Yeah, well maybe they are retards. I was just trying to get my point across. What's the big deal? --Example user

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) --Example user
 * 2) --Example friend

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I remember he did the same thing awhile ago at Naturism. However, I think this RfC has gone too far. Did you even see the diff he was responding to (diff to User:Foo calling Example user a retard first)?

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) --User:Outside opinion

User who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) That does not give him the right to resort to personal attacks too. He just went too far. --User:Bar
 * 2) --User:Third party

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.