Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (3rd 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 Closed. Process cannot be changed by a request for deletion. There will need to be consensus for RFC/U to be mothballed, and at present, the nominator makes no mention of such consensus existing elsewhere. I would suggest the usual Village Pump, Noticeboard and Mailing Lists to attempt to gain consensus for the discontinuation of RFC/U. Even if RFC/U is discontinued, deletion may not be appropriate, and I would suggest that the page be tagged as historical. Nick (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User conduct
I am renominating this process page for deletion/historicalisation because the instructions left by the closer of the MFD nine months ago have not been followed. Because the page details a process, and not a policy or guideline, it cannot qualify for the use of disputedtag, and as such MFD is used per precedent for processes such as the CSN and Esperanza.

El C, in closing, noted that RFC/U is problematic through its lack of enforcement, but also noted that the lack of RFC would cause ANI to become slightly busier. He also urged the community to reform the process and discount any superfluous RFCs - neither of which, have not happened: for the former, requests for remedies was proposed as a sanction-carrying alternative to RFC/U, and was rejected; for the latter, several recent RFCs (one including myself) were filed with lack of proper certification but was still kept.

Perhaps the most worrying thing about the process is that one of its creators, User:Jdforrester, admitted that it's gone downhill from his concept into a "hate-fest free-for-all" and hardly resolves disputes, and subsequently supported archival. An example of this is Elonka's current RFC, which I made a similar comment that it's "gone from what may have been a valid dispute into an ugly incivility-creating free-for-all focusing on anything Elonka may have done wrong ever".

Nine months down the line, nothing has been done to improve the process, despite repeated urgings by several admins. Thus, I support the disuse of the process as a really bad idea. Sceptre (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (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.