Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Template:Wikipedia ad exists

Archives
For why RfC was created, see Archive at WP:Resolving disputes Archive 1 Archive 2: Feb 2004–May 2005 Archive 3: May 2005–Sep 2005 Archive 4: Sep 2005–Oct 2005 Archive 5: Oct 2005–May 2006 Archive 6: May 2006–Dec 2006 Archive 7: Jan 2007–Jun 2007 Archive 8: July 2007–Dec 2007 Archive 9: Jan 2008-Feb 2009 Archive 10: Feb 2009-May 2009

Sanctions

I support the change to this page which notes that RFCs may result in sanctions from the community. I believe it reflects practice. Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the recent change, which restores the situation that existed prior to this change. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to oppose this, but completely endorse this change by Rd232. RfC/U is not a final resort, but is one of two other available conduct-dispute-resolution steps - it is more formal (as it edges closer to ArbCom), while WQA is more informal. "RfC/Us are merely a means to (1) highlight conduct problems (generally, more complex ones) and (2) to try to make the user change their approach through community feedback without sanctions. If it's not worth the effort, and you want binding outcomes (or a combination of binding and voluntary outcomes), then you are not in the correct venue." I'm not even sure why anyone would want RfC/U to replace later sanction discussions (at the relevant admin noticeboard) or ArbCom cases if there is a chance issues can be formally resolved without binding measures - in my opinion, it would be leave a gaping gap in dispute resolution for no good reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree - in the sort of complex cases we're talking about, involving often long-established editors, RFC/U (as it currently stands, an attempt to resolve issues as amicably as possible) is a necessary step in dispute resolution. Rd232 ^talk 08:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What happened to Community sanctions?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance

I recently came to this new page and was surprised by the following passage:

What RfC/U CANNOT do is:

* Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;

It's been a while since I've been involved in an RfC but in the past, it was clearly understood that an RfC could lead to community sanctions. See this example. Has something changed and, if so, where is the documentation for this change?

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose that this passage be replaced by the following material found at WP:RFC#Request comment on users:

• An RfC may sometimes lead to either bans, or editing restrictions placed by the Wikipedia community, or removal of administrator access by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well clearly the texts should be consistent, but I'm flabbergasted that the change at WP:RFC a few days ago [1], overturning a year-long status quo, was made without any prior discussion. Particularly since if this change is accepted, there needs to be clear guidance on what exactly is meant. I've reverted for now, with clarification. [2] Rd232 ^talk 16:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There was some dispute as to if RFCs can levy sanctions, and as such I've removed all language saying can/cannot sanction from the page. It appears to me that a broad consensus on an RFC can levy sanctions. Is there disagreement on that point? Why would a broad consensus on RFC not be acceptable to judge sanction? Hipocrite (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And I've undone that. You can't just delete what has been the status quo for a year, and which was changed recently without even a talkpage notification, never mind prior discussion. A change of this magnitude - when it's been embedded for a substantial time - needs an RFC. Until then, the status quo stays. Rd232 ^talk 16:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see any disagreement. While one should be cautious in declaring a 'consensus' result from any given RfC, this process is certainly more deliberative than the usual 'fast' route to sanctions: AN/I. In principle, where any doubt exists about whether or not a sanction imposed through RfC has the support of the community, it could be referred sideways to AN/I for endorsement, or up to RfArb to be enacted by motion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, 11 Sep: "one of the fundamental principles of RfC/Us that the outcomes are voluntary, voluntary and voluntary. They are not designed for making binding outcomes. RfC/Us are merely a means to (1) highlight conduct problems (generally, more complex ones) and (2) to try to make the user change their approach through community feedback without sanctions. If it's not worth the effort, and you want binding outcomes (or a combination of binding and voluntary outcomes), then you are not in the correct venue." Anyway I'm far from certain that a change in this direction couldn't get consensus; but it clearly needs more discussion on the principle and on the implementation (meaning/guidance at least). The current position seems to be that voluntary outcomes are formally the only possible outcomes, but that if the process doesn't resolve the problem, the discussion/evidence will feed into later processes where involuntary sanctions are feasible. Declaring involuntary sanctions part of RFC/U would be a very substantial change. Rd232 ^talk 16:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy should be descriptive and not prescriptive. The question we should be asking here should not be "Should sanctions be imposed based upon an RfC" but rather "Have sanctions been imposed based upon an RfC?" If the answer to the latter question is "yes", then there is every reason to alter the wording in question to reflect this fact. Shereth 16:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The example given above was from August 2008. The "voluntary outcomes only" statement has been in place since September 2008. Wikipedia:RFC/How to present a case has declared that since March 2009. Plus the example appears to be wrong anyway: User:GoRight/Community sanction cites an August 2008 ANI discussion, not the RFC (and see also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/GoRight#Done.3F). Rd232 ^talk 16:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Has there been any precedent for community sanctions imposed via RFC since then? I'm not trying to say this change should or should not be made, but merely pointing out that this discussion need not devolve into a spirited debate about what should or should not happen. I don't have the time/resources myself to review the last year's worth of RFC's but if there exists precedent for sanctions imposed therein, the change should be made. If sanctions have not been imposed, then the wording should remain as it is. Shereth 16:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. While there might not be enough to say that a strong broad consensus for sanction can impose them, there's just as much evidence to say that User:Cyclonebiskit is banned from RFC/U as there is evidence that sanctions can-not be derrived from RFCs. The lack of any RFC/U sanctions in no way means that they are prohibited. A prohibition against something requires that people actually support that prohibition - with a reason, rather than a plea to yesterday. I'm wondering why a strong broad consensus at RFC/U to do something isn't actionable. Could someone explain that to me? Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You have a point, but nevertheless what you are suggesting here is a departure from the status quo (you are the one proposing a change to the wording), therefore it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that a consensus exists to this effect. My point had been to say that if santions have been doled out as the results of RFC discussions previously there is no need for protracted debate on the subject, since updating the language to reflect common practice is only sensible. If on the other hand you are proposing to make a change to the status quo, then yes, consensus is required to that effect. Shereth 17:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support the idea of community sanctions, including bans and blocks, as an expeditious way to deal with disruptive editing. These are stated as being an acceptable result of an RfC/U at WP:BAN#Community sanctions. For the discussions of RfCs to say that an RfC/U cannot "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures" is an explicit contradiction of long-standing policy and—at the very least—leads to unnecessary confusion. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:BAN says "In some cases the community may have discussed a block on a relevant noticeboard or in an RfC/U, and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the user. Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community"..." This does not sound like a contradiction of the status quo. Blocks may of course be discussed in an RFC/U - but it's supposed to be a last resort (so not part of the initial drafting of an RFC), and if there is consensus for a block it is not directly enforceable, it needs confirming at ANI or via Arbcom. Rd232 ^talk 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC/U used to encourage users under discussion to state things from their point of view candidly, without threat of sanction. Wikipedia used to like coming to agreement from participants. Apparently the new way to deal with trouble is aggressive use of blocks and bans. If RFC starts dealing blocks and bans, you'll get sycophantic responses from the subjectvictim or no participation at all. The ideology of RFC needs to be thought about, is it for constructive criticism, an evidence and opinion gathering process for punishment? In both cases, it is usually an empty step towards RFAR. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I agree that blocks or bans should be the last resort of an RfC, and only when one of the parties does not cooperate in the discussion or refuses to accept consensus. My problem is with this passage in the text box at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance#The nature of RfC/U:

Please keep in mind that RFC/U is a non-binding, informal process.

What RfC/U CANNOT do is:

• Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;

This explicitly contradicts Wikipedia policy and should be changed to conform with Wikipedia policy. I suggest the following revision of the text box, quoting Wikipedia Banning policy:

Similarly, I am also in favor of resoring Jehochman's edit, to bring this article into conformance with Wikipedia policy.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The first of the two references to RFC/U at WP:BAN was added on 29 August.[3], the other on 5 November [4], the latter by Jehochman who also made the change I reverted here. Neither change appears to have been discussed at either WT:BAN or WT:RFC. In sum, if the community wants this, fine. But such consensus needs to be demonstrated by discussion, not smuggled in without discussion. Rd232 ^talk 20:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The notion of community bans has been around for a long time. It appears in the Banning Policy 0n 7 Nov 2006, and in something closer to the present form on 5 May 2007. The explicit expansion to encompass an RfC/U appears in the Banning policy on 29 Aug 2009, although bans have been imposed as early as Sept 2007 in the context of RfCs. This isn't slipping in something new; it's restoring something old. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the disconnect between the pages needs to be resolved.

I believe that RfC/U's will be signifcantly harmed by permitting non-consensual outcomes. WP:Dispute resolution is fundamentally about resolving problems, and that requires open, fearless communication between the parties. This can't happen when you have someone pounding the table for involuntary sanctions with every comment made by the targeted editor. It's not good enough to restrict it to "extreme" situations: most of the editors filing RfC/U's already believe that their dispute is "extreme". Non-extreme situations don't produce RfC/U filings.

This matches the voluntary/consensual standards used in all content- and policy-based RfCs as well: The community also imposes no involuntary sanctions on editors that ask for help in resolving questions of sourcing, neutrality, and so forth.

Also, as a bit of 'practical reality', most RfC/U pages get very little attention from any editor that isn't already involved in the dispute. These people are, by definition, not able to impose involuntary sanctions. ("Involved" admins aren't allowed to impose blocks, ever.) Therefore for most RfC/U filings, "the community" never bothers to show up, and therefore "the community" can't impose anything anyway.

"I think this dreadful editor should be perma-banned" can be taken -- and routinely is taken -- to the admins' noticeboard, where such requests are considered routine.

Therefore, based on what I think is both common sense for dispute resolution and the actual current practice of the community, I think that the disconnect between these pages should be resolved by changing WP:BAN to name only AN as a typical forum for community sanctions, and to return RFC/U to its consensus-driven nature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done that - removed mention of RFC/U from WP:BAN for now. If there is consensus demonstrated, BAN and RFC can be adapted appropriately - and hopefully in a way that makes clear exactly what is meant. Rd232 ^talk 21:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree and think the the current version of BAN is best for the time being. I did hope to make it clearer in my edit, but I self-reverted that as the wording was a bit convoluted and not all cases really need RfC (where conduct is obvious to uninvolved parties, it is not needed). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The point about the involvement of users in RFC/Us (i.e. mostly involved users comment) is a very good one. Rd232 ^talk 21:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Digging into the archives at Talk:Banning policy I found that this debate has been around for a long time. One comment from April 2007 said: "I personally have banned more people just from WP:RFCU then have ever passed through the community noticeboard...."

Now I am not going to insist that RfCs are the only possible venue for imposing community bans; but we should have a well defined procedure and RfCs seem to have a long tradition of having been used for this purpose. When I opened this discussion I asked for an explanation of the removal of RfCs from the process in the past year or so and I'd welcome comments from old-timers on this issue. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, as a point of fact, no individual editor can impose a "community" ban. I suspect that the editor meant that he, as an admin, blocked more editors over disputes that he encountered at RFC/U. Given that Mackensen participated in just five CN discussions (I manually checked all 14 archives), I'm sure that his statement is accurate as far as it goes -- but it doesn't really go very far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

New RfC posting tool

No longer requires an email address or an account or any of that! Available on the Toolserver. By the way, now that we have this, do we really have a need for the "manually-added entries" pages anymore? @harej 00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

New edit intros for RFC/U

I have created a new edit intro, {{RFCU editintro}}, which is activated from the forms on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation. They state the obvious: make sure you're not accidentally overwriting a page. I was asked to create this after a very experienced user almost wrote over an old RFC, thinking that the text in the edit window was just sample text. @harej 22:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Borrowing the logic developed for the Article Wizard, I've improved it so {{RFCU editintro}} tests if the page exists, and if it does, it shows {{RFCU editintro B}}. Rd232 ^talk 13:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! @harej 18:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

the editing restrictions imposed on me

note: I have removed the text which was here because I was informed bellow that I am not allowed to use RfC to have review of sanctions. Loosmark (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note what's written at the top of this page: "NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment. Please follow Wikipedia:Requests for comment." This is in the wrong place. I don't even think RfC is the right place for this in general; if I'm not mistaken, these restrictions fall under an ArbCom case (Digwuren? Can't remember for sure which; there's so many about EE), which I do believe means an appeal belongs at arbitration enforcement or by appealing directly to the committee. Either way, though, definitely not on this talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well he didn't tell me this is a Digwuren sanction. Anyway please give me the correct link for RfC because I can't find it. I'll then just copy the text there. Loosmark (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's already been reviewed at WP:ANI (see latest archive page), although formally speaking WP:AE would be the appropriate forum according to WP:DIGWUREN. But whichever, asking for yet another review at this point is little more than forum shopping. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I want RfC on the sanctions. Please indicate me where should I go? Is this the place [5] ? Loosmark (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

RFCs are focused on a pattern of user conduct, not on specific sanctions. I do believe we've already mentioned that AE is the proper venue, but honestly, I'd not hold my breath for any result that's different from what you already got at ANI. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

ok then, I will try to copy this to AE. Loosmark (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I have removed the above text. Loosmark (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Moving draft RfCs into project space

Hi, not sure where else to take this question so I'm sticking it here, feel free to reply here or on my talk page.

I've drafted a user conduct RfC in my userspace which I will likely be taking "live" in the very near future, though I'm actually still hoping to avoid that. The precise procedure for this does not seem to be described (taking a draft RfC live), though I'm assuming the best route is to simply move the page from my userspace into WP space which is easy enough. However I don't have the full formatting in the draft RfC as I removed the section at the top that includes the "this RfC began on, the current time" information (since it presumably would not have been accurate). If and when I move the page I want to make sure the formatting is correct but that's definitely not the kind of thing in which I have expertise. I could also simply copy and paste the content into a generated RfC form but presumably that's a licensing problem easily avoided. Just looking for a little guidance here so if someone wiser than I in these matters can drop a note I'd be much obliged. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)