Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was no consensus. Such consensus is probably more likely to be reached with a discussion at the policy level. With respect to Arbitration Committee members, and in this case also one co-creator, claiming that its costs exceeds its benefits: one of the things to do, on that level, is to stop asking for RfCs, which until recently was rather commonplace. Another problem opponents of user RfCs face is the lack of a viable alternative; pouring this content into the noticeboards is likely unsustainable. Myself, I am rather ambivalent about the User RfC mechanism, but with regards to its failure, I think, as one of the admins most active on the User RfC front (and having deleted many tens of them, including high-profile ones — which one should not shy away from), is that it suffers from a lack of enforcement. In my experience, User RfCs tend to promote wikilawyering in the vast majority of cases because of a lack of a genuine attempt at resolving the dispute, and this is where decisive action on the part of admins (more of them to overlook the process, to begin with) is crucial. 'No, you did not appear to have launched a genuine attempt at resolving the dispute, you made some token comments so that you could have this indictment-like process undertaken against, not about, the target editor.' While discussions on the policy level take place, it wouldn't hurt, then, to proactively increase the standards (which are the original standards and aims, after all) of User RfCs. Thus, I urge editors, sysops, and members of the Arbitration Committee (especially during active cases) to discount and/or delist those below-par User RfCs rigorously. El_C 10:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User conduct
WP:RfC/U is horribly broken. The previous nominator thought so too. For at least two years, the process hasn't worked. RfCs are a breeding ground for incivility, personal attacks, and general bad faith. They spend weeks in a quagmirish state until some are taken to RfM or RfAr because RfC/U lacks any sort of system for sanctioning editors. For that reason, just burn the thing to the ground and move the disputes to places where they can be resolved quickly. Will (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Some relevant history - In February 2006 editors engaged in a straw poll about the usefulness of user conduct requests for comments at Wikipedia:User RFC reform. Some editors attempted to reform RfC/U in February 2006. RfC/U also was listed for deletion in February 2006. Wikipedia:Justice Court was deleted in June 2006. Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard was closed in October 2007. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing/Noticeboard was deleted in October 2007. RfC/U presently is step number 4. in Dealing with disruptive editors. (compiled from What Links Here)-- Jreferee    t / c  06:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - this is the only and best intermediate step between banning and/or RFAr. We simply have too many people on en.wikipedia (as opposed to other wikiprojects) to not have a system to deal with troublesome users. A few problem RFAs are only that - but they don't take away from the need to have an RFA when there really is a troublesome user (I've seen a few I've commented on). Especially now that WP:RFI is gone, there will be no recourse for troublesome users in the future if we take this away. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite a lot of them can be solved by putting them on ANI to deal with. Just take the rest to RFM or RFA. Will (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ANI is overloaded, and only appropriate for obvious policy-violations in progress. People are routinely told it's not the place for more subtle user issues and referred to RFC. If you are referring to WP:RfAr, that's even more overloaded, and even more inappropriate for things that can be handled by the community. I agree RfC lacks teeth, but it's an informal step. If people don't like it they don't have to use it. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 02:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of a user RFC? Each step of dispute resolution hopes to resolve the dispute in question. RFC on the other hand hopes to be a purely bureaucratic step between mediation and rfar (or whatever). Due to the heavy bureaucracy surrounding user rfcs many disputes are virtually ignored until they become unbearable and unresolvable. Cases that go to arbcom take so much time because the dispute intensifies over time due to a useless process like this one. The tangled dispute takes forever to resolve as a result. Also something that goes to RFC either ends up on ani (numerous times) or RFAR anyways often even during a continuing (yet stale) rfc. Processes do not exist just because people 'like' or 'dislike' them, they need to have a purpose. An RFC is the equivalent of a non-binding resolution by the US congress. It makes lots of noise at times but ultimately thats all it does at best. -- Cat chi? 16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I challenge any person who wishes to keep the RFC/U process to demonstrate one RfC that had truly resolved a dispute. In other words I expect to see a single dispute get completely resolved with RFC and without the use of any other steps of DR. -- Cat chi? 18:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Archive don't delete but mark it as a former process. User RFCs are completely pointless. Even if an RFC shows no sign of "incivility, personal attacks, and general bad faith" (a very very rare case), the decisions are toothless and are never enforceable. This process is merely a useless bureaucracy prior to other processes such as WP:RFAR. If a dispute is not resolvable through discussion or mediation, I do not see what good a bunch of comments will do. -- Cat chi? 20:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The alternative to the process is mediation, discussion, rfar, ANI and other working processes. This one (RfC) is entirely unnecessary. -- Cat chi? 23:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Archive - No reason to delete prior user RfCs, but the effectiveness of such actions is seemingly all but nonexistent, and basically just helps fan the fires but not put them out. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Archive/make historical - What do RFC/U's actually accomplish? They get a bunch of opinions and people say which opinions they like in some sort of pseudo-vote that has no real outcome. Mr.  Z- man  22:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Archiving this is sensible. I've been watching this for quite some time now with an eye to eventually nominating it for either deletion or deprecation myself, and skimming rfcs as they're added to and removed from the page.  Far and away the most common case is a blindingly obvious month-long speedbump on the way to another two or three months of arbitration, in which case it only serves to encourage apathy and letting the disruption continue with the vague hope that someone else will deal with it.  RFCs against established users are usually meritless, subjecting the user to months of unwarranted stress and hostile endorsements from underinformed, drive-by endorsers; or, in those cases where there is merit to the complaints, the user's friends, assuming there isn't, either wikilawyer the rfc into deletion despite ample certification, or obscure it with frivolous outside views.  I can't think of a single RFC that neither ended up at arbitration/mediation nor wouldn't have been dealt with better and more speedily at ANI. &mdash;Cryptic 22:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see any suggestions here or elsewhere for fixing RfC/U, or for replacing it with another process. Without RfC/U, the only formal steps in dispute resolution that focuses on editors are AN/I and ArbCom. (Mediation is for content issues only.) RfC/U is often regarded as a stepping-stone to arbitration, but the fact that many cases never make it there shows that it works in some respects. I'd rather see suggestions on fixing RfC/U than an out-of-the-blue MfD. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepI can see the merit of those who would get rid of RfC/U, but I don't think it's the process that's the problem. A process doesn't need to have punitive measures to be a step in dispute resolution.  It's a chance for people to air grievances and discuss the problem in what should be a controlled setting.  Bringing a complaint before the community is a good middle step between first taking it to the person themselves and then taking it to admins. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Archive - it's really a useless process because it has no teeth. At best it's a slap on the wrist, or a place to archive evidence for a possible future request for arbitration, at worst it's a venue for baseless accusations and personal attacks. Split the low-level conduct off to WP:ANI, and the serious misconduct to WP:RFAR. It seems that most of the candidates in the upcoming ArbCom elections are promising to keep the backlogs down, so hopefully they can handle the increased workload. Videmus Omnia Talk  22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Most candidates for arbcom say they'll keep the backlogs down. Why do you assume that the current candidates will be more successful than the previous? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just an optimist...but I intend to help the process along by !voting for productive users like Newyorkbrad and Ryan Postlethwaite. Videmus Omnia Talk  23:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep until someone suggests a viable alternative. Viridae Talk 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Offload the majority onto ANI, the rest onto RfAr. To show how much more efficient ANI is, recently got blocked for the personal attack. The attack was made on 29 October. Once it was posted on ANI on November 12, it took only 18 hours to sort out. Will (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like evidence they actually achieve in practice more than nothing at all would. I suspect they're not really even that much use to the arbcom of late (I never found them tremendously useful as an arbitrator a coupla years ago, and the quality of them hasn't gone up) - David Gerard (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to move more burden onto the already groaning shoulders of ANI and the ArbCom, but I agree that something must be done about RFC/U. Will's absolutely right to say that it isn't really working, and more often creates and prolongs drama than it solves problems. Needs fixing, needs bite, possibly trashing if nothing else works. Moreschi If you've written a quality article...
 * Archive and mark historical. RFCs have never worked, and something better needs to be built.  Historically IIRC they were meant to be preparation for an arbcom case, something like the arbcom workshop (also in need of overhaul, I believe) but in practise they're only good for making things worse until the arbcom feel they have to take the case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Archive and mark historical. They may have had a use in the past, but they don't practically speaking do much good these days - David Gerard (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would vote keep if I could find a single example of a user conduct RFC which actually improved a criticised user's behaviour, and did not aggravate a dispute and provide a ready forum for personal attacks, bitterness, and character assassination all round. Unfortunately I can't find one so I'm voting delete. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for the moment until there is consensus at a suitable policy page. This is not the place to discuss such a change. Personally, though, I think it is fairly useless at present--but that something less formal that ArbCom is necessary, and  AN/I is at  overload already. DGG (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I really have to worry about this. I wonder if we're not all making the same mistake that we made with WP:RFI - where a few people with a recent bad experienced rushed to kill the thing altogether. As a result, half the threads on ANI now get scant attention when a thorough investigation is appropriate. Now we're going to be swamping ANI even more with content which requires a long look, and ANI is archived within the space of two days. My question is: are you sure you want to get rid of our last and best hope of dealing with long time users? I have seen some considerable unhappiness that RFI was dealt away with. I would, very grudgingly, be willing to accept archiving on the condition that WP:RFI is brought back or we come up with some alternative. Otherwise, we have no way of dealing with truly problematic users. Trust me, ANI doesn't work; as a non-admin, I get ignored half the time I try to post something there that's more than a little complex. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise for being one of the two people behind the creation of RfC (along with mav); originally we intended it to be a venue for those who were looking for input into article improvement - a direction to which it has somewhat-pleasingly partially returned - but it very quickly degenerated into the hate-fest free-for-all that we know and, err, well, know, at least. It has never been useful in bringing people around to different opinions; at best it has been a way of ensuring that majority opinion can be expressed clearly, often to the negation of consensus and the detriment of the project at large. User-based RfCs oft spiral into Arbitration cases, and it is not infrequent that people go into them as a "hurdle" to getting to put their opinion to the Arbitration Committee, entered into in the complete absence of good faith intent of resolving issues.. I think the user-behaviour part should be archived, and looked back upon with distaste. And I think it's pretty obvious that RfC creates more work for those of us on the Committee than it resolves. James F. (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Historicalize – The RFCU subpages only state possible resolutions; nowhere is it said that resolutions from RfCs are officially binding. We have MedCom and ArbCom for issues that need it; in the meantime, AN/I is available. —Animum (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As Will Beback notes above, Mediation Committee mediation is only for content disputes, not conduct disputes.  Daniel  01:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Question A few people have suggested offloading easier issues to ANI, and others have sensibly remarked that ANI is overloaded. However, WP:AN is often quite slow moving, and thus more suited to longer, deliberative conversations of the type that RFC/U issues probably should be. Is there any reason this process couldn't be offloaded to WP:AN? If so, I am also in favor of marking this as historical. Natalie (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Question. Would deletion of RfC/U include deletion of WP:RFC/ADMIN? I assume it would but I don't see any discussion of it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's my intention (they're on the same page). If an admin really has abused his powers, again, RfAr. Will (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - User conduct RfCs are potentially very useful, but all of that goes out the window when we allow ourselves to use them as platforms for accusations of bad faith. Conduct is entirely different from motivations. I recommend keeping the process, and starting to enforce very seriously the idea that talking about others' motivations simply does not fly; no exceptions. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Listen, I've been to arbitration. It's a sticky, time-consuming mess, particularly if the policy issues aren't crystal clear. To say there's nothing between ANI and arbcom, no recourse for more community input except to take it to what is the equivalent of Wikipedia's Supreme Court, is to remove an important avenue of requesting community help and focus. How many cases does Arbcom handle a month? The case I brought took 3 months from filing to closing. October 2007 saw the closing of 12 Arbcom cases. And that was a peak month, more often it's between 4 and 10 cases a month. This doesn't even count the cases Arbcom throws out for various reasons without any ruling whatsoever. ANI can't take care of everything. If I sound peeved, I am. The RfC process certainly has problems, and people have noted them galore above, but it remains a useful option. Pigman what? / trail 02:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So have I. I've just had to take a case to RfAr becuase most admins won't do anything about RfCs. If one of the process' creators is denouncing it as broken from the offset, then there's serious problems with it that can't be solved with a few discussions. Will (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the problem, then, perhaps that ArbCom isn't scaling? This problem isn't going to get any better, with time. Perhaps we need to explore other options. Multiple committees, say? – Luna Santin  (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, Unless and Until Something Better is in place and working smoothly. In recent days I've seen people ask for help with user conduct issues on WP:ANI, only to be told to take it to RfC. There needs to be a structured level of community discussion and attempt at consensus before moving up to mediation or arbitration. I was also involved in an arbitration case and, quite frankly, what with the overload on arbcom itself and the smaller number of people on arbcom, I'd rather give the community a chance to discuss it before bouncing it up to arbcom. I am wary of putting any more power or work in the hands of arbcom than sits there already, and AN/I is not the place for it. While WP:AN is less problematic an option than WP:ANI, I still don't think it's the place, and anticipate users who go there being told as much. Losing RfC would create more confusion and chaos, not less. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 02:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - MfD is not the appropriate place to propose changes to the dispute resolution procedure. It really bugs me people try to use MfD to change policy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think URFCs tend to foster considerably better representations of community-wide consensus that ANI discussions and the like. Of course there's nothing strictly binding about views that arise there, but I think it's useful for shaping and analyzing consensus, and communicating facts clearly to interested editors. — xDanielx  T/C\R 04:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Historicalize. This process has no use anymore. User RFCs become nothing more than thinly veiled attack pages under the guise of being part of dispute resolution. That combined with the fact that RfCs generally have no method of resolution (as in, no binding solutions), they give even less service to the community. ^demon[omg plz] 06:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Archive and mark as historical WP:RFC/USER is, most unfortunately, useless and ineffective. There's a bit of everything: requests made in bad faith, requests shunned by everybody, requests that are ignored by the reported user, lynching mob picnic requests, etc.. No matter the kind of request, anything that is actually agreed thereupon will lack any validity or real application. Some say that WP:RFC/USER is a way to prove to the Arbcom that some steps were taken before a case is dispatched to them. I say it's just a waste of time for everybody. User conduct requests should be sent directly to the Arbcom or to a another organism with the actual ability of taking decisions regarding the reported users. Hús  ö  nd  06:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Archive, delete, get rid of, etc. I've never thought of RfC as anything other than a time-sink. The process has absolutely no teeth, creates huge amounts of drama, is used to create attack pages, is a breeding ground for wikilawyering, and is continually unproductive. ArbCom closes more and more cases every month - and each one of those ever more numerous cases has as least one failed RfC as "evidence that dispute resolution has failed. (emphasis mine) RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 08:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh please, you don't fix a process you don't like by killing it. I suppose WP:RFA is next? Thatcher131 12:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * RFAs actually end with real results though. The user is either promoted to admin or it is clear that there is no consensus or consensus not to promote. With RFC/Us though, there is no real resolution to each one and there are often so many different views to choose from that it can create a lack of consensus. Mr.  Z- man  19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and give it teeth indeed. It's a proper intermediate step, but it does lack teeth. The solution, IMHO, isn't to can the process, but rather to render it effectual. So, yes, there should be some sort of mandatory enforcement carried out when the community arrives at a consensus on what to do.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that essentially be recreating WP:CSN and all the witch-hunting that entailed? Videmus Omnia Talk  15:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Keep and Give it Teeth. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 02:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. It is a useful reality check to see if it's just a personality issue between two editors, or if someone is consistently, persistently out of line. To give it teeth perhaps there can be a standard 1-day, 3-day, etc. (step up ban) if the consensus finds persistent incivility, edit warring, tendentious editing, etc. Renee (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I know most user RFCs are terrible, but ANI is not a viable alternative -- it's overloaded, it's attention-span for disputes is too limited. RfAr is not appropriate, either: cases already take much too long, and (with due respect to James F.) I think most sitting ArbCommers would want to kill anyone who added weight to their workload, especially cases with fewer prior discussions involved.  In the absence of a better idea, this process is all we've got, even if its outcomes are consistently poor. Xoloz (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It can be an effective way to determine consensus. Even if the concerned party does not recognise this, later steps of dispute resolution - such as ArbCom - often will.  --Iamunknown 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think that AN and ANI are enough, in conjuction with ArbCom. I'm not sure this would add meaningfully to the ArbCom workload, given that the RFCs which aren't ill-founded, easily resolved, or better framed as article-based disputes tend to end up at ArbCom anyway. And the arbitration process has the advantage that complainants are expected to present their complaint in a way that is comprehensible, which the statements in RFCs frequently are not, if they want the case accepted. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Section Break Nov 19

 * Archive, mark historical, etc. From my experience, we refer people to RfC, but it doesn't do anything except for allowing people to rehash the same complaints, not to mention oftentimes act as a delaying tactic against the inevitable block/banhammer. As White Cat said earlier, it is supposed to resolve disputes, and if it fails to do so, depreciate it. Esperanza and the community noticeboard faced the same fate due to lack of usefulness. And I'm sick and tired of seeing people complaining that this is not the appropriate venue: 1. This is called miscellany for deletion for a reason, and 2. RfC is not a policy. It is an institution supposedly to resolve disputes, but has failed its job to do so. — Kurykh  01:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is shooting the wrong reason for whatever problems RFC/U might have. The cause of the problems are angry and rude editors, not something inherent in the RFC format. You are not going to improve that by moving it to a different venue (where the threads are really messy causing even more of a shouting match than the reasonably orderly "endorse this view" format). Moreover, I think most RFCs are resolved without the matter winding up at arbitration, and the fewer cases we send there the better. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Esperanzify. I concur with several editors above in that I've never, not even once, seen a User RFC being useful in actually resolving anything. Almost without exception, they turn into flamefests. Many are started in bad faith in order to win content disputes, many more are simply entirely ignored by their subject, and yet many more are put there only because some people believe arbitration necessitates a formal RFC first. It's high time we got rid of this.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actively search for a superior replacement and discuss again later The idea of having a forum for the community to give constructive criticism on user conduct is potentially good. The actual forum is a disaster, but I think killing it without at least looking for a replacement would be worse.  If we find a superior replacement, and start using it, a consensus to mark this historical will be quickly formed at a future discussion.  If we can't find a superior replacement, we'll hold a future discussion about this knowing that there aren't any better ideas.  Due to the large scale of Wikipedia, very very few items get brought by editors that are not in a dispute with the individual they name, simply because we don't have time (and it wouldn't benefit the project), to randomly follow other editors around and see how they behave.  But when editors bring up a conduct issue about a user with whom they have a content dispute, it is very easy to paint them (whether truly or falsely) as doing so because of the content dispute.  The forum might become viable if there was a community of users who would ignore the content and examime the conduct.  But there is no such community.  So instead of reviews of the conduct, we get wikilawyering, accusations of bad faith, factionalism, and other non-helpful discussions.  We really only have three formats thus identified that conduct issues can be discussed in - the WP:ANI snakepit format, the WP:RFC/U format that effectively hides consensus unless it is extremely overwhelming, and a XfD voting type format that has recently been killed off for user conduct issues WP:CSN.  I think we'd be better off going to a discussion followed by polling format, as at least there consensus, if any, is visible.  I wouldn't object a great deal to marking this historical; it won't be as bad for the encyclopedia to lose this as it was to lose WP:CSN.  GRBerry (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's not a perfect system but it's the only one we've got as a first major step in user conduct dispute resolution. AN/I is far too high speed to look at long standing behavioral issues, and it's unfortunate that many issues don't get looked into as much as they should. Some people would argue that the RFC/U process doesn't have enough teeth, but does it really need teeth? It's an opportunity for an editor to take on board concerns that other members of the community have and subsequently make changes to their editing style accordingly. I agree that this doesn't always happen, and many RfC's do in fact fail to come to a positive ending, but there a few cases of user misconduct which are solved in the process. The two options set out in the nomination statement just wouldn't work for all the cases that end up at RFC/U. Arbitration is supposed to be a last last resort when the community has failed to resolve disputes itself, sending cases directly to arbitration would take away the opportunity for the community to first find answers to users conduct. It's also not appropriate to sanction users who haven't had a chance to reform their ways as a result from consensus in an earlier dispute resolution method. Mediation isn't a viable option for user conduct. Mediation is about getting the parties together in a dispute and allowing them to discuss the issues at hand in an attempt to come to a compromise that all parties are happy with. The process is a voluntary process and all sides must agree to mediation. In a conduct dispute, the person who's conduct is questioned would have to agree to mediation, and by doing so, would therefore admit there is a problem with their editing - if this was the case, 99% of cases would be solved as the editor in question would change their ways as they recognise the problem. Mediation also has no way of dictating to users how they should change, it merely provides a path that acts as a guide for all users to take to help solve disputes. Reform may be appropriate, but this should not be done away with completely.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, if we can find something better. There needs to be some middle step for discussing user conduct issues, but RfC isn't working well... the lack of teeth, as others have said, is one problem.  The other big problem with it that I see is that it doesn't generate the level of community comment that's needed for such a process to have an effect.  The one RfC/U I've really participated in generated what appeared to be a strong consensus, but hasn't had as much of an effect as I'd hoped, which is partly, I think, because there seemed to be far fewer "outside" opinions than I would have liked to see.  Putting such issues on AN or ANI would fix that, but I think moving everything that now would go to RfC to one of them would stretch them beyond usefulness.  So, while I think we need some kind of process, I'd prefer it to be one that doesn't have these two major flaws, and it looks to me like it might need to be something new. Pinball22 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Section Break Nov 20

 * Keep - RFC/Us, while at times abused, can be useful. As evidence, I offer this RFC/U. While the subject of it chose not to engage in it, the RFC/U led to a consensus on ANI to indefblock the editor in question. While this certainly isn't the optimal outcome of a RFC/U, it is a valid one. (Ie, informing disruptive users that their behavior isn't acceptable, and serving a repository of diffs that prove as much.) Still, I concur with the many above who suggest the process could be improved. I haven't a clue as to how though. -- B figura (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd also like to echo the issue raised by Thatcher and others above: MfD is really not the place to propose policy changes. This would have been better raised on the pump, or the somewhat circular Requests for comment/Requests for comment/User conduct. -- B figura (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Until we find a better alternative, we should keep using this. Captain   panda  04:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep RFC/U is a much better place to try to sort out a dispute with a user rather than going immediately to ArbCom. Take Requests for comment/Ryulong for example; while I agree that a couple of trolls disrupted that RFC/U, that request for comment/user conduct was overall a success, as since then, the subject of that RFC/U (Ryulong) has been addressing the concerns raised on that page. Going to RFAR directly to sort the problem out would probably have led to a desysopping rather than a discussion on how Ryulong could improve. Due to that RFC/U, an ArbCom case was avoided, and Wikipedia and Ryulong are better off. While I do agree that there are problems with RFC/U (such as some people using it as an excuse to troll or to be uncivil), I think the positives of that place outweigh the negatives. Acalamari 17:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.