Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WT:RFC
NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment. Please follow Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Are you having trouble getting your RfC listed? Please make sure the bot hasn't been turned off. If the bot hasn't run in the last few hours, then please alert the bot's owner. If the bot is apparently running, then the problem is almost certainly with the template formatting. To get help with formatting the template correctly, please leave a message, including the name of the page where you want to start the RfC, at the bottom of this page.
Search
Search
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Summaries

At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 4 we seem to have agreed a summary. I think a summary is a useful thing to have on RFCs (some more so than others perhaps). In this RFC the summary was added at the bottom, but I think it makes more sense to have the summary at the top than to have it at the bottom and point to it from the top - particularly since the summary in the current mode is made part of the archived discussion, even though it has to be done after archiving. I made {{RFCUsummary}} for a reason: if we want people to actually read the summaries, we should put them above the fold, and that's what the template was designed for. Rd232 talk 16:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, more broadly, I'd encourage people to think about some guidelines on how to do summaries efficiently and neutrally. Rd232 talk 16:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point. Summaries are simply a note for the archives, and for the case where the consensus marks the resolution of that dispute, or where a resolution has otherwise been reached despite community input. That is why they are generally put at the bottom. Unless a very clear consensus exists, or there is a special reason to have a summary (such as such a resolution), they should not be happening at all. Summaries are not made to adhere to a template that you unilaterially created without consulting or discussing with anyone else. Similarly, summaries are not a substitute for the views expressed, nor are they intended to hide the views expressed; the entire point of RfC/Us is to gather views, have all those views read, and make (and read) the agreements made - trying to shortcut away from that sort of defeats the objective. The fact that summaries were controversial (both in the above Dbachmann RfC, and a previous Fut Perf one) suggests that the principle stands: unless there is agreement or there is a special reason or a combination of both, it is generally an unhelpful timesink. All that said, providing extra guidance can be arranged, though arguably, one would think that the "forum" could be used for that function too where particular cases arise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Harsh tone; you know the pressured circumstances under which the template was created (closing that RFC). And in general for these things it's a lot easier to show than to tell, and I'm quite experienced with templates so it wasn't a big deal to do. If we don't want to use it, that's fine. Either way, I think the summary should be where people actually will see it, if they look at an archived RFC - at the top. And a summary is just that - it does not replace or negate the process, it just clarifies it post hoc. And FWIW, one way to do it would be a collaboratively-written summary during the RFC, which might be helpful for the process too; worth a go perhaps. Rd232 talk 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should try to focus on what is written rather than your perceptions which previously proved to escalate something quite unneeded. The criticism is not with showing rather than telling; it is with foolishly attempting to import the minutia from a specific situation into something applies far more broadly. The problem with summaries (which resulted in so much disagreement and time being taken to write the one out in that RfC) is that they can needlessly colour perceptions as to what was done during the RfC, what was decided by consensus during the RfC, etc. etc. This issue does not arise when readers go through all of the RfC and finally read the summary at the bottom (or not). While it may be your intention (and faith) that it does not negate the process, the practical reality speaks for itself. The direction of an RfC can change even during the last 24 hours or so; even that RfC led to a number of partial and struck endorsements. That idea would probably not be practical, but I do appreciate that you are brainstorming. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Haven't you two already had this discussion? Or was it someone else that NCM was ticking off for writing summaries?
Personally, I find summaries, especially prepared by an experienced editor that's willing to stick around and discuss any disputes about the summary, to be very helpful for long RfC/U pages. They have a way of stripping out all the "why" and "wherefore" and tangential information and reporting a concise statement of the actual outcomes, e.g., "X agrees to be kinder to newbies. Y agrees to not edit war." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate Page Section?

I entered a new RfC/U by editing the Box that lists them (as I could best figure out the instructions), trying to get it into the Candidate Page section. Instead it turned up in the approved pages. Could someone who knows more about the syntax of that Box clarify the instructions and/or fix it so it works properly. Thanks --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Listing RfC/U's in RfC topical lists

It seems to me that if RfC/U's were listed on the topical RfC lists, they might attract a wider range of well-informed comments without the potential for running afoul of WP:Canvassing guidelines. A clutzy way to do this would be to add the existing Rfctag template at the beginning of an RfC/U. A more elegant way would be if someone who knows template code would develop a customized template to have the same effect on RfC/U's, saying something like:

This RfC/U has been listed on the Subject 1 (and Subject 2...) list(s); interested editors are encouraged to comment.

Any reactions to this idea? Any volunteers to code a new template? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC/Us are about conduct, not content - the need to post under a particular topical list does not arise as it would probably not be appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This reminds me of my plan to transparently integrate the RFC/U system into my bot so that it was essentially the same process but the bot would handle the list. This ended up not happening for some reason. {{rfctag-alt}} still exists as a vestige of that effort. @harej 01:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why it would "not be appropriate" to advise those looking at the RfCs on a given topic of other RfC/Us that concern the conduct of editors who edit articles touching on that topic. I agree that RfC/Us are about conduct, not content. But I also take it as agreed that we want to encourage wider participation in RfC/Us. It seems that editors interested in a topic area would also be interested in -- and be able to give informed comment on -- the conduct of an editor editing articles in that topic area.

Could Ncmvocalist please clarify this objection. Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

NCM can give his own reasons, but here are mine:
  • Having an RfC/U filed "against" you doesn't prove that you've actually done anything wrong. A 'warning' to other editors that you're working in this or that area may be completely inappropriate.
  • RfC/Us are sometimes filed when absolutely no content has been harmed. Editors who are doing The Right Thing™ in the mainspace may be engaging in personal attacks on talk pages or irritating project pages with persistent demands for anti-consensus changes.
  • People watching the content RfC lists are usually there because they know something about the content, not about resolving disputes.
  • Spamming an RfC across the maximal set of pages harms the overall RfC process by forcing potential respondents to wade through irrelevant (to them) non-content listings to find the ones that are actually on topic.
Overall, I don't think that it's a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals category has been deprecated

Considering that the policy RfC list is more maintained than it used to be, and to avoid unnecessary forking of discussion, I have discontinued the "Wikipedia proposals" category. @harej 01:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Moving draft RfCs into project space

moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Assistance#Moving_draft_RfCs_into_project_space. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RFC/U at ANI?

This page says "User conduct RfCs are announced on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to encourage wide participation. Postings include a brief statement of the behavior in dispute."

Does anyone do this systematically? (The wording "are announced" implies that it actually and routinely happens, not merely that it is permitted.) Is this supposed to be a statement that posting about the RfC/U at ANI isn't generally considered canvassing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

no, it happens automatically via transclusion of a template at the top of WP:ANI. That template, {{RFCUlist}}, is also seen at WP:RFC/U. Rd232 talk 22:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up - that part was written prior to the transclusion template existing. However, there is generally no good cause (anymore) to post a separate message at AN/ANI while the system of transclusion (the template) exsits at the top of AN/ANI pages. I am aware that one certifier has done so in the most recent RfC/U filed, though I think it was done based on the ambiguity on this page. Will fix that up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I've made some productive changes that reflect what is actually done.[1] This is not a proposal to do something new. Collectonian reverted. I'm open to discussing the changes on the merits, but I prefer that they not be reverted without any sort of explanation. Please discuss on the merits. RFC does not place sanctions, but immediately following an RFC an administrator, the community, or ArbCom are free to place any sanctions they feel are called for based on the RFC. Telling people otherwise is false and does a great disservice. Jehochman Make my day 22:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It kind of already said that - your changes expanded on part of that, whilst removing the rest, giving a dramatic change in emphasis. I suggest combining your text and the original, thusly:

An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information. However, that information may feed into subsequent dispute resolution which can lead to involuntary sanctions. In addition, the information and consensus developed in an RfC may be referenced to justify the issuance of sanctions or warnings by administrators, the Wikipedia community, or the Arbitration Committee. In the event of an RfC about an administrator or functionary, the results may be used to justify the removal of access privileges by the Arbitration Committee.

Rd232 talk 22:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Collectonian reverted it simply because I was one of the editors involved in that consensus-driven editing process, (doing essentially what Rd232 proposes here, which I fully support).
Collectonian has reverted some explanatory text I added at WP:ORG and demanded that I follow BRD at while flatly refusing to allow me do so (BRD requires editors to discuss changes with the perrson who reverted them, not merely to discuss changes in general). I am making assumptions, but she hasn't edited this page in more than six months, and her edit summary is "another fundamental change without discussion nor consensus".
I've posted an explanation of Wikipedia's actual rules about editing at BRD's talk page, if anyone's interested in a short list of policies that specifically forbid reverting changes solely on the grounds that they weren't discussed in advance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Collectonian was justified in reverting Jehochman for the stated reasons; I don't think anyone could respond differently in the circumstances, except to complicate the BRD process by doing 3 steps in 1 which would not work. I think there is undue emphasis on certain points in Rd232's version, which complicates the process and moves users away from the aim of making people resolve things voluntarily and amicably. Accordingly, I suggest the following:

An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions (such as involuntary editing restrictions, blocks, and bans) on a user; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information. However, if a dispute is not voluntarily resolved through an RfC, the information and consensus from an RfC may be used in subsequent admin noticeboard discussions and/or dispute resolution to justify the issuance of involuntary sanctions which limit or remove an user's privilleges.

Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Good ideas. Instead of saying "cannot impose sanctions", which invites wikilawyering if somebody gets sanctioned after an RfC, how about this:
The RfC process is not used to request or place a user under sanctions, such as a block or an editing restriction. Instead, RfC is a tool for collecting information, assessing consensus, and providing feedback. If an RfC subject responds poorly to feedback, either through their words or actions, involuntary sanctions may then be applied through the normal administrative, community sanction, or arbitration processes. In the event of an RfC about an administrator or functionary, the results may be used to justify the removal of access privileges by the Arbitration Committee.
As an example, consider a user who has been accused of plagiarism, something that can be subtle and difficult to identify upon casual investigation. An RfC may be initiated to gather evidence and determine whether the plagiarism is just a few isolated mistakes or a serious ongoing pattern. If there is a serious ongoing pattern, and the user's final response to the RFC is "No, everything I'm doing is fine, and I'm going to continue doing exactly the same", a community discussion may immediately follow, referencing the RfC, and requesting a community sanction. Jehochman Make my day 14:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think your version has even more issues with it. It is distorting sanction process with RfC/U, and also, we wait to see how people act after an RfC rather than waiting on assurances which may or may not come, and may or may not reflect future actions. But to resolve the wikilawyering concern, I'd amend the first line of my previous suggestion to say "RfC/U is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information - it is not the venue for requesting or imposing involuntary sanctions (such as involuntary editing restrictions, blocks, and bans) on a user." Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think your change is helpful. Jehochman Make my day 15:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I support Jehochman's original changes, although when they showed up I suspected someone would object because of absence of discussions.
Jehochman's changes provide valuable guidance to editors about how the process actually works. Editors encountering disruptive editors can (and have) become confused about where to go to sort things out after discussions begin to lead nowhere. Without Jehochman's addition, the text seems to say that RfCs do not provide a useful path for dealing effectively with disruptive editors; I don't think that was intended. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps providing a link to the sanction process is more suitable than providing details of the sanction process when this page deals with, for better or for worse, RfC and RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think your proposal too heavily emphasizes voluntary agreements. If people are being reasonable to begin with, they will not end up at RfC/U. The process is a form of intervention where an editor is given a last chance to shape up before serious sanctions are applied. Given the 2:1 support on this thread in favor of changes, I'm going to try again with a new version, and am open to further changes. Please specify what's wrong, if anything, and we'll work out the details. The main goal is to prevent this policy from being viewed as a toothless waste of time. Jehochman Make my day 18:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Your assumption of guilt is simply not true. For example, I believe that the first RfC I ever read was filed against an admin that stopped an edit war by protecting m:The Wrong Version. The editor who filed the complaint was an active participant in the edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Link? But yes, people may be accused and be innocent of wrongdoing. A voluntary agreement presumes that there was wrongdoing, and there's a voluntary agreement to stop. If somebody is reasonable, that agreement may often come sooner. If a matter gets to RfC, there's a substantial chance that some sort of involuntary consequence may follow. Jehochman Make my day 22:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
A voluntary agreement is an agreement to change, and should be regarded in a positive sense. Unfortunately, I think most matters reported to RFC/U never seem to get anywhere; perhaps they should, but that is another matter. But Jehochman, I think your latest version is a fair statement of the situation,. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Here. This happened more recently than I had remembered. User:Paul gene filed the RfC/U (and complaints in several other places) because David Ruben stopped a week-long edit war over MEDRS' status. Paul didn't want WP:MEDRS to be considered a guideline because it agreed with some of Wikipedia's major content policies that he disliked (primarily WP:PSTS). Paul left Wikipedia shortly after it became clear that MEDRS was never going to be re-written to his specifications. It would be unfortunate for anyone to conclude that Paul's wrangling, disruption, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT was somehow David's fault solely because Paul filed an RfC/U that named David.
Family counselors have a relevant concept: the 'identified patient'. The 'identified patient', or the person named in an RfC/U, is not always the person who is causing the problem, and it is unfortunate if editors assume that mere accusations are proof of guilt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Undent

This discussion seems to be going off on a tangent; I don't see any "assumption of guilt" in the change. It just makes it clear that if an RFC/U identifies serious problems with an editor, the information and consensus that it develops can then be brought forward to other appropriate levels of the process. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We have comments above like, "If people are being reasonable to begin with, they will not end up at RfC/U."
Reasonable editors most certainly can, and do, end up at RfC/U, because any two tendentious editors can bring them there. Being reasonable yourself is not any kind of protection against having complaints made against you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] A new template proposed

Ludwigs2 created this template for comparing debate points side by side. See a demonstration. What do you think? Sole Soul (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RFC "specialist"

I have encountered an RFC "specialist" in a particular subject matter. He has a definite pov. Everytime, there is a rfc, he jumps in with a comment favoring one side, normally. He does not edit.

It seems to me that someone with (say) a clear political pov, should avoid giving third party comments on political article disputes. Wikipedia might be better served if they commented on place or medical article disputes. Right now, this has had the long term affect of maintaining a serious problem in reporting anything that resembles the general news on this particular series of articles.

I think the guidelines should go on a bit about being an "outside" commentator. What "outside" means, and stressing a neutral pov towards the material. Student7 (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I recognize your frustration, but we really do want comments from everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment"