Wikipedia talk:RFC reform

basically

Basically, the point is for the community to decide what a user-RFC "is", and then to change the user RFC instructions to reflect that. If a user-RFC is the last step before arbitration and banishment and should only be used for hopeless editors who should be expelled from wikipedia, then the instructions should reflect that, adn the name should be changed to something that reflects this attitude ("Public hearing" is my suggestion).

If user-RFC's are intended to be used for editors who make contributions but violate policy doing it, and a user-RFC is a way to get the user to change their behaviour, then the instructions should clarify that a user-RFC is intended for that purpose, and that a user-RFC is NOT a method of last resort for banishing unrepentant editors. FuelWagon 21:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Simplicty and history

I don't feel strongly about much of this. I'm a little leery of a different name, because I think the general RFC page is a good central point, and I prefer not to see further splitting or confusion.

By the way, I realize user RFCs are not seen as friendly, but I don't see them as being very punitive either, given that the worst direct effect is many negative comments, which can happen regardless. "Request for censure"? :)

If you look in the archives or ask User:Jguk, you might find his proposed reform from some months back, and it might be useful to you. Maurreen (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that whatever the name is should be something beginning with "Request for". The real reason why I was suggesting a different name is that there is disagreement about the sequence in which different dispute resolution steps should be taken. Robert McClenon 11:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

If a user conduct RfC is not meant to be confrontational, then why is there a precondition of two certifications within 48 hours? That is probably to prevent it from being used frivolously, to ensure that it is taken very seriously. Robert McClenon 11:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is part of the problem. The Requests for Mediation page states that the less formal Requests for Comments should be used first. That is unfortunate. A Request for Mediation should be seen as a less unpleasant way to solve a user dispute than a user conduct Request for Comments. Mediation should be encouraged. The present RfM introduction discourages mediation in cases where it should be tried first.

The level of steps in dispute resolution, in my view, should be:

1. Discussion on talk pages
2. Article Request for Comments (in the case of content issues)
3. Request for Mediation (after article RfC in case of content issues, after discussion in case of conduct issues)
4. User Conduct RfC, or RfCa, or Request for Censure, or Request for User Inquiry, when conduct issues persist
5. Request for Arbitration, as last step when there are conduct issues

The reason why I am recommending renaming the user conduct RfC is that having two types of RfCs which are used at different stages is confusing. Robert McClenon 11:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that inserting a requirement that mediation should be attempted first before a user RfC is something I would agree with, having been through mediation (or, rather, currently going through mediation). My experiences with mediation perhaps have not been standard, but I've been waiting for one mediation to start since June 10, and the other one, while it's started, is now stalled with the mediator basically AWOL. To me, mediation is too broken (mainly due to lack of mediators) to be reliable enough to insert as a requirement for completion before moving to a user RfC. If you want a user RfC to be harder somehow to discourage frivolous ones, then I think other means should be sought as part of the RfC. Maybe have three people certify, and stiffen the rules (like -- no anons, or 100+ edit count, similar to VfDs). · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Are article RFC's strictly for content related disputes? if so, then even if a user-rfc is renamed to "Public Hearing", then it would still be the first step in resolving a dispute involving policy violations. If article-rfc's are to be used as the first step for resolving policy violations, then that should be clarified on the article-RFC instructions. FuelWagon 15:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

is a usr rfc just comments

Is the only effect of a user RFC is that it generates comments? is there any other negative effect? If someone has a user rfc filed against them and the overwhelming majority of comments are against them, what's the worst that can happen? Sticks and stones can break my bones but comments never hurt me? If that's the case, then fine, but there are currently some warning messages added to the user RFC page that say do not take filing an RFC lightly. This is a contradiction. If there are other consequences, what EXACTLY are these consequences? The idea would be to have the user RFC page explicitely spell out these consequences so that users know what's going on.

If a user RFC does nothign but generate comments, then all the warnings around the user RFC should be removed as they try to make a user RFC sound more damaging than it really is.

If a user RFC has more consequences than simply generating comments, what exactly are they so they can be listed on the user RFC page.

If no one knows, then its no wonder user RFC's have such wildly different interpretations. So, which is it? FuelWagon 15:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the general idea is that it exposes a user's behavior to the community. There aren't specific consequences as such, but since Wikipedia works on consensus, if the consensus is that someone's been behaving badly, then that user should be enjoined to reconsider his behavior in light of the way the community feels. Of course how that gets enforced is the real question; there's no teeth. But it is censure of a sort -- or exoneration. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:39, September 7, 2005 (UTC)