This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. The RFC/U process has been discontinued as a result of this discussion. Other dispute resolution processes should be used for conduct issues.

Rules

Different RfCs have been run in different ways, but there are a few hard and fast rules:

• An RfC on user conduct MUST have the following in its structure:
  • A statement of the dispute, including an evidence section with diffs, and evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute.
  • A section for the subject's response.
  • A section for individual views from other editors.
  • A list of which editors endorse each of the above sections.

• The following is NOT permitted:
  • Personal attacks—but remember that the sole purpose at RFC/U is to "comment on the contributor", not on article content.
  • Comments that are neither a view, proposed solution (if using Template:RFC boilerplate 2) nor an endorsement. (All of those comments and replies belong on the talk page.)
  • Disagreement endorsements, threaded rebuttals to endorsements, or "oppose view" sections. Partial endorsements ("I agree with the first paragraph") are acceptable and encouraged when appropriate. Opposition to views can be expressed on the talk page, or by creating and endorsing a new view.
  • Changing the text of other people's statements or views. To remove your own comment or links, it is preferable to use strike-through notation, like this, instead of deleting it.
  • RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process.

Guidelines

Once a User Conduct RfC has been opened and certified, other editors can take a look and offer comments, either by posting their own view, or endorsing someone else's view.

The following represents the guidelines formed by general practice. These are not policies or "rules", but advice on how most RfCs are run:

• Anyone, including those who wrote the original RfC, is allowed to post their own view, in a separate section with their name on it, such as ==View by <name>== It can be helpful to indicate the viewpoint of the particular editor, such as "Outside view" "Inside view" "Semi-involved view" etc.
• In most cases those who brought the RfC do not post individualized views, since the initial statement already indicates their thoughts, but in some cases they may wish to post an additional individualized view to clarify their opinion. Either method is acceptable.
• Other users can endorse a view, by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.
• All signed comments and talk that are neither a view nor an endorsement should be directed to the discussion page.
• Any other types of discussion should be directed to the talkpage.
• Anyone can endorse any view, regardless of whether or not they are outside parties, inside parties, or even the subject of the RfC. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse.
• You may endorse as many views as you wish. You may also endorse the original RfC statement, and/or the subject's response.
• Only endorse views with which you agree. Do not post "disagreement" endorsements. The lack of a signature is sufficient indication that there may be some disagreement with the statement.

For more information on how previous RfCs have been run, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive.

Don't react emotionally or in haste. There's no getting away from it: being the subject of an RfC/U is usually unpleasant. By definition, you've already been in one or more disputes with the user or users, and now things have escalated—and perhaps you think that they're the ones who should be the subject of an RfC/U! Well, perhaps. Take a deep breath and follow these directions.

Uncertified RfC/U

• If the RfC/U is uncertified, you don't really need to do anything. A brief, reasoned, calming response, or a pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere may be helpful; but there's no need to start preparing a point-by-point refutation if you don't expect any other users to certify the dispute. Remember uncertified RFC/Us are deleted after 48 hours.

Certified RfC/U

• If an RfC/U has been certified, you should make an effort to respond constructively and calmly. Don't attack or find fault with other users (especially any outside observers), and do respond to the substance of the dispute. If there are many examples of a supposed problem, don't try to prepare a point-by-point refutation of each one - a few will do.
  • Admit fault where appropriate. (To err is human.) Promise not to do it again, and the problem's probably solved.
  • If necessary, suggest some outcomes that might be helpful to ongoing content disputes, or that might help show that you are committed to co-operating with others (eg limiting yourself to talk page comments on an article, for a limited period).
• If an RfC/U has been certified and you don't engage with the substance of the dispute within a reasonable period of time, and if the dispute remains ongoing, then the matter may be taken forward to other dispute resolution processes, including mediation, arbitration and Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. You are not officially required to participate in an RfC/U; however, failing to participate constructively comes at a steep cost, because it is typical for this failure to be held against you in all future dispute resolution forums.
• Don't retaliate by attempting to open an RfC/U against others. Even if it is justified, now is probably not the time, and you are probably not the person to do it. The existing RfC/U, although nominally identifying you as the subject, is a proper forum to discuss and scrutinize the behavior of all the people involved in that specific dispute, not just the one editor whose name is at the top of the RfC/U page. If you're considering doing this (e.g., for a separate dispute involving some of the same people) whilst an RfC/U against you is open or shortly after it's closed, ask whether it's a good idea at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Assistance.
• Don't think that a temporary disappearance will end the discussion. There is no deadline for resolving disputes, and RfC/U pages can be put on hold if the subject is unavailable for any reason.