Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation


 * If you've come to this page, you should already have read Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance and followed its directions.



Context
Many users do not read up on disputes that might reach RFC eventually. It is very unlikely that they know the history of the dispute going in &mdash; that someone is a known advocate of a point of view, that someone has a history of defending problem users, or that everybody who has ever dealt with a user recognizes them to be a complete lunatic. Point these things out to them (ideally justifying your claims with diffs). If you point to an edit that comes after a month of heated discussion, it may not make sense to someone who was not a part of that discussion.

Take care with evidence that requires context. If there is better evidence for the same point, use that instead. Otherwise, be ready to explain the context. Note that the more explanation a piece of evidence requires, the less likely anyone is to have time to pay attention to it.

Length
RFCs can become very long; nobody has time to read through 100 KB evidence pages, and they especially don't have time to reread them after they've forgotten what was what. Don't let your page get to 100 KB. Be concise, be direct, be clear. Consider how much time it will take a reader to understand your points, check your diffs and read those linked pages, and draw overall conclusions.

Remember, if more evidence is specifically requested on the talk page by uninvolved users, you may present additional instances there. You do not need to show every single instance of a given user being a problem &mdash; doing so can be counterproductive. Pick the clearest examples you can, and present them with as little commentary as is necessary.

Wikilawyering
The community generally believes that the Wikipedia method works; that Wikipedia is generally a successful project, and that admins are generally trustworthy. An outcome that will result in Wikipedia (and its editors) working better is what is favoured. Pursuing arguments that oppose Wikipedia's basic principles, suggesting the existence of a massive cabal of rogue admins, or treating the dispute resolution process as if it were an end in itself will not work.

It would be a mistake to argue on the assumption that an RFC functions like a court of law - see also Wikilawyering. When you are involved in an RfC/U, arguing about flaws in the mediation and the RFC process is usually a waste of time - it's not the venue to review or modify such processes. Also, note that the first involved party to try to rules-lawyer the process is likely to have an unfavourable outcome &mdash; because they wouldn't be rules-lawyering the process if they had a case. Rules-lawyering an RFC might reasonably also be used as a cue to escalate the dispute to the next step, rather than waiting for tardy responses to be completed.

Therefore, if questions about the RfC process in general are placed in the RfC/U itself by those involved, it may reflect an unfortunate appearance of wiki-lawyering and prevarication. Remember that the RfC/U exists to review user conduct and find ways to resolve disputes; it does not exist to modify Wikipedia processes.

Goals in user conduct RfCs
Many editors that start RfC/U pages are understandably very frustrated with behavioral issues. At some level, they really want the outcome to be a vindication for their work and punishment for the other editors. However, RfC/U discussions are not designed to impose solutions on the unwilling. The community may facilitate the discussion, or it may provide views (via outside editors), but it will not force a user to change his/her behavior through the RfC/U. The goal is dispute resolution through working together - not outside punishment.

Consequently, the desired outcome needs to be both something that could be agreed to by all of the involved parties, and something that could be implemented by the involved parties themselves. If an RfC/U has been certified, and after a reasonable period of time the subject of the RfC/U does not respond constructively, or does not respond at all, and if the dispute remains ongoing, then the matter may be taken/escalated to an appropriate admin noticeboard, or other dispute resolution processes, such as mediation or arbitration.
 * Some examples of possible goals:
 * The editor will reform the conduct outlined in this RfC.
 * The editor will voluntarily limit his/her work on Article X to WP:1RR for the next month.
 * The editor will voluntarily limit his/her contributions to Article X to making suggestions on the talk page.
 * The editor will agree to provide high-quality sources whenever s/he adds potentially controversial information to articles on Topic Y.
 * The editor will agree to make a greater effort to comment on the content, not the contributor.
 * The editor will agree to stop using profanity on Wikipedia.
 * The editor will agree to remove offensive text from his/her talk page.
 * All editors will voluntarily follow the Bold, revert, discuss system in Article X to reduce edit warring.
 * Some examples of impossible or ill-considered goals:
 * We get to revert whatever this editor does if we don't like it.
 * The editor is forced to apologize against his/her will.
 * The editor is forced to re-write Article X to our specifications.
 * The editor will be blocked.
 * The editor will be permanently topic-banned.
 * The editor will be banned in 24 hours.
 * Possible outcomes, which cannot however be goals at the outset:

Ready
If you've taken the above on board and have read Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance and followed its directions, you may be ready to create an RfC/U. (You have followed the key step of ensuring that you and at least one other editor have tried to resolve the issue with the editor in question, haven't you?)

To create an RfC/U, use one of the appropriate forms below (either General user, Admin or Bot conduct). Remember to replace USERNAME with the name of the user (eg for User:Example, Requests for comment/Example). (If you click Create and find yourself editing an existing page, come back and add a suitable digit to the end of the user's name - eg Requests for comment/Example2, or if necessary Requests for comment/Example3, etc).

General user conduct
Use this form to generate the standard template example for general user conduct:

An alternative template example is available for general user conduct. This new template has been redesigned from the original to try to focus more on discussion than conflict. If you would like to use this template, use this form:

Admin conduct
This type of RfC/U is only for discussions specifically related to the use of sysop rights by Administrators. This includes the actions of protecting or unprotecting pages, deleting or undeleting pages, blocking or unblocking users, and enforcing Arbitration Committee decisions. If the dispute is over an admin's actions as an editor, it should be a General user conduct RfC/U.

Use this form to generate the standard template example for admin-related conduct:

Bot conduct
This type of RfC/U is only for discussions specifically related to the operation of a bot. This includes the actions of unauthorized bots, bots without flags, and inter-wiki bots. It does not include the use of scripts or semi-automated tools on a user's account. If the dispute is over a bot owner's actions as an editor, it should be a General user conduct RfC/U.

Use this form to generate the standard template example for bot-related conduct: