This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why allow motions against the creator of an RFC rather than only its subject? Because, simply put, there's two sides to every dispute, and in many disputes both parties can be bordering on the disruptive. There should not be an advantage given to the party who first complains about the dispute.
Why allow only admins to vote on motions? First, they are the ones enforcing it in the first place; a motion supported by dozens of users but no admins would not be enforced. Second, it is to prevent pileons by POV warriors. For instance, a group of leftists could make a motion to prevent rightists from editing their article. It is possible that we have biased or partisan admins, but if they abuse this system it will only serve to expose them.
Isn't this a rehash of the old quickpolls mechanism? No, it's not. Quickpolls were used to request 24-hour blocks (or, rarely, arbitration) on problem users. Motions are used to tell users to stop certain disruptive behavior. If they behave like normal editors, they won't be in trouble.
R adiant _>|< 14:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-- D e ath phoenix 19:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Great idea, of course because it mirrors my thoughts. :) I thought enforcing consensus that emerged in an RfC was what we were supposed to do anyway. In the one RfC that I maintained this position on, it was quite successful. The user stopped their actions once a significant consensus emerged that the actions were not helpful and when I made it clear any user could enforce the consensus by reverting edits that were clearly against it. It happened to be a fairly clear cut case, but that's fine because if it wasn't then there wouldn't have been such a strong consensus and there wouldn't have been anything to enforce. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BB69 for the example RfC. - Taxman Talk 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Make it so! This was kinda my idea all along when I first created the RfC process. But I never got around to creating an enforcement side to RfC due to the creation of the ArbCom at about the same time and my selection to be in that body. -- mav 03:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Be sure to include that, upon the necessary approvals, the offending user is notified on his/her Talk page of the decision and what it would mean if he/she does not comply. User:Zoe| (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
How come admin votes are more important than other editors in this proposal? I don't really follow what goes on in a RfC, so maybe there is a good reason. Please explain it to me.-- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This proposal would change the nature of adminship. Admins are often selected because they have demonstrated that they are willing to "perform essential housekeeping chores". They are often made admins without any significant experience in editing articles and with no indication of wisdom in article content disputes. If you want to create a "lower court" below Arbcom, then you need to propose a system of certification for the judges. It would not make sense to start giving every existing administrator additional powers that were not taken into account when those administrators were evaluated for adminship. If you want to give additional powers to admins, then you first have change the basic Wikipedia administrator policy This should be no big deal. RfC is a way to promote discussion. If you want to change it into a system for enforcing the decisions of administrators, then you should propose such changes at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. -- JWSchmidt 14:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This reads like a move to make Wikipedia even more of a game of Nomic. It also makes RFCs even more inherently contentious than they are. Witness the recent RFC against User:Kelly Martin, where the huge numbers of objectors to her actions were in fact wrong in law and wrong by policy and in way great need of serious cluebatting. "The community" is on complete crack far too often for this or anything like it to even resemble a good idea - David Gerard 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I ask, genuinely not knowing the answer: how many of Kelly's "lynch mob" were administrators? Would there likely have been 2/3 admin support for any enforcement measures there? — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 18:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the nomic criticism is particularly valid. It's only a nomic if it's relatively easy for mobs to make long-term rule changes (for RFC, I assume that would be by setting precedent). Also, we have WP:IAR, and intentionally large gaps/overlaps in policy, which require conflicts to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Perhaps it could be clearly stated that RFC decisions could not set precedent (eg. that somewhat like AFD, decisions in one RFC case should not strongly affect decisions in other cases, that RFC decisions should be assumed to be mob rule). We already have methods for policy creation/change (arbcom, and long-term mob discussions about policy proposals), and they're relatively slow. As long as RFC doesn't speed up that process, and instead is one small part of the conversation of policy change, then it would make Wikipedia no more of a nomic. -- Interiot 20:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is more like nomic than many other communities I've participated in since I started doing things online (oh, back in 1979 or so, I think it was). That's not to say it's a *lot* like nomic, but the more like it that it is, the worse, IMHO. That said, I don't think this proposal makes it more nomiclike, but rather less. YMMV of course and I am but an egg. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
When I jokingly suggested that RfC be renamed Requests for Crucifixion, the intent was not to suggest that we should give RfC a large box of nails. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned that currently RfC is used by nationalist POV-pushers to intimidate their opponents. Trolls may easily plunge any RfC into a circus, as was the case with Bonaparte's trolling on Anittas' first RfC. We should prevent filing slanderous RfCs, as the one filed by POV-pushers against dab. The only solution is to make a RfC more difficult for trolls to launch. We should institute a certain suffrage. The RfC should be allowed to proceed only if a certain number - say five - editors, including one admin, certify the basis of the dispute. -- Ghirla | talk 10:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that forbidding AFD participation would not be a bad thing in the case of some users under RFC (e.g.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich).
143.239.138.63 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Stifle 16:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to login)
I feel this is attempting to fix something which isn't broken. Disruption of Wikipedia is already a blockable action. I can't see why we need to turn Wikipedia into the Security Council of the United Nations, with ensuing arguments over the precise nature and wording of an RFC, and whether reverting a vandal in an article constitutes editing an article from which the user is precluded from editing via an enforceable RFC. Let's remember that the only rules worth breaking are the one's written down, and not add to the morass of complications a wikipedian must entail simply to help create an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a beaureaucracy. In fact, Wikipedia is not perfect. Let's allow arbcom to handle all this stuff. Sure, there will be points when arbcom gets it wrong, but hey, I'm inside the glass house too, so who am I to start throwing the stones. This proposal is far too open to abuse and could well lead to editor's imposing their will within certain pockets of Wikipedia. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. RFC's are useful as they stand, in that it allows people to express their feelings on a given subject without the fear that expressing such opinions could lead to inappropriate conclusions. Let's not turn RFC's into votes on punishment, let's not reduce actions to black and white binary polls, let's not create stocks on Wikipedia, let's assume good faith and when it breaks down, let us shrug our shoulders and start again. Wikipedia is not perfect. Hiding talk 20:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Overall, I support this proposal, as a second step in the dispute resolution process, though I have still seen cases where an RfC did help to defuse a problem, without further escalation needed.
Comments about the policy right now are as follows:
Hope that helps! Elonka 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The better solution is (always has been) to change the arbitration process so cases are heard by smaller panels. I generally trust the arbitrators, given that we've approved virtually all of them by now, and Jimbo has as well. Certainly I could trust two-thirds of any panel, no matter its composition, taken from the current Arbitration Committee. By contrast, there's no way I'm willing to trust ten self-selected voters here, even with a two-thirds requirement. See also the dismal failure of Wikipedia:Quickpolls.
Let the Arbitration Committee take cases in panels of five arbitrators and handle cases quickly, without all the procedural overhead. The full committee can then review these decisions in more detail when necessary. -- Michael Snow 05:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Why can't we just outline remedies in summaries or outside views of an issue and if there is sufficient moral force behind them, an administrator can enforce it? I think lots of people will react negatively to the amount of mechanism, vote-counting and rules around this, when the spirit of what people are saying about admin accountability is fairly simple: RFCs only work for people who listen, and sometimes they need to be made to do so. I don't really see "RFCs with remedies" as enabling anything more than what admins can already do; it's just a way of providing further guidance for admins in the particular area of user conduct. Demi T/ C 16:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't give powers to lynch mobs -- Doc ask? 20:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The RfC against Antidote should have resulted in permabans for sock puppeting long ago, once it was proven that he made sock puppets purely to manipulate Wikipedia. Instead, however, a number of people who wrote to submit evidence against him ended up being banned based on very flimsy evidence, including people who tried to get others who were unfairly banned unbanned, and indeed that whole thing in a lot of ways led to the furore over Kelly Martin. Yet still Antidote was never blocked! Yes, RfC needs more enforcement, especially in blatant cases like that. Zordrac 19:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Because this way things get enforced before mediation is ever attempted, breaking the flow of dispute resolution. Either that or RFC needs to be moved forward or backward. However, RFC-enforcement-style proposals have been tried on other wikis, and turn out to often be inferior to what the arbitration commitee does. Caveat emptor!
Kim Bruning 14:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why allow motions against the creator of an RFC rather than only its subject? Because, simply put, there's two sides to every dispute, and in many disputes both parties can be bordering on the disruptive. There should not be an advantage given to the party who first complains about the dispute.
Why allow only admins to vote on motions? First, they are the ones enforcing it in the first place; a motion supported by dozens of users but no admins would not be enforced. Second, it is to prevent pileons by POV warriors. For instance, a group of leftists could make a motion to prevent rightists from editing their article. It is possible that we have biased or partisan admins, but if they abuse this system it will only serve to expose them.
Isn't this a rehash of the old quickpolls mechanism? No, it's not. Quickpolls were used to request 24-hour blocks (or, rarely, arbitration) on problem users. Motions are used to tell users to stop certain disruptive behavior. If they behave like normal editors, they won't be in trouble.
R adiant _>|< 14:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-- D e ath phoenix 19:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Great idea, of course because it mirrors my thoughts. :) I thought enforcing consensus that emerged in an RfC was what we were supposed to do anyway. In the one RfC that I maintained this position on, it was quite successful. The user stopped their actions once a significant consensus emerged that the actions were not helpful and when I made it clear any user could enforce the consensus by reverting edits that were clearly against it. It happened to be a fairly clear cut case, but that's fine because if it wasn't then there wouldn't have been such a strong consensus and there wouldn't have been anything to enforce. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BB69 for the example RfC. - Taxman Talk 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Make it so! This was kinda my idea all along when I first created the RfC process. But I never got around to creating an enforcement side to RfC due to the creation of the ArbCom at about the same time and my selection to be in that body. -- mav 03:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Be sure to include that, upon the necessary approvals, the offending user is notified on his/her Talk page of the decision and what it would mean if he/she does not comply. User:Zoe| (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
How come admin votes are more important than other editors in this proposal? I don't really follow what goes on in a RfC, so maybe there is a good reason. Please explain it to me.-- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This proposal would change the nature of adminship. Admins are often selected because they have demonstrated that they are willing to "perform essential housekeeping chores". They are often made admins without any significant experience in editing articles and with no indication of wisdom in article content disputes. If you want to create a "lower court" below Arbcom, then you need to propose a system of certification for the judges. It would not make sense to start giving every existing administrator additional powers that were not taken into account when those administrators were evaluated for adminship. If you want to give additional powers to admins, then you first have change the basic Wikipedia administrator policy This should be no big deal. RfC is a way to promote discussion. If you want to change it into a system for enforcing the decisions of administrators, then you should propose such changes at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. -- JWSchmidt 14:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This reads like a move to make Wikipedia even more of a game of Nomic. It also makes RFCs even more inherently contentious than they are. Witness the recent RFC against User:Kelly Martin, where the huge numbers of objectors to her actions were in fact wrong in law and wrong by policy and in way great need of serious cluebatting. "The community" is on complete crack far too often for this or anything like it to even resemble a good idea - David Gerard 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I ask, genuinely not knowing the answer: how many of Kelly's "lynch mob" were administrators? Would there likely have been 2/3 admin support for any enforcement measures there? — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 18:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the nomic criticism is particularly valid. It's only a nomic if it's relatively easy for mobs to make long-term rule changes (for RFC, I assume that would be by setting precedent). Also, we have WP:IAR, and intentionally large gaps/overlaps in policy, which require conflicts to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Perhaps it could be clearly stated that RFC decisions could not set precedent (eg. that somewhat like AFD, decisions in one RFC case should not strongly affect decisions in other cases, that RFC decisions should be assumed to be mob rule). We already have methods for policy creation/change (arbcom, and long-term mob discussions about policy proposals), and they're relatively slow. As long as RFC doesn't speed up that process, and instead is one small part of the conversation of policy change, then it would make Wikipedia no more of a nomic. -- Interiot 20:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is more like nomic than many other communities I've participated in since I started doing things online (oh, back in 1979 or so, I think it was). That's not to say it's a *lot* like nomic, but the more like it that it is, the worse, IMHO. That said, I don't think this proposal makes it more nomiclike, but rather less. YMMV of course and I am but an egg. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
When I jokingly suggested that RfC be renamed Requests for Crucifixion, the intent was not to suggest that we should give RfC a large box of nails. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned that currently RfC is used by nationalist POV-pushers to intimidate their opponents. Trolls may easily plunge any RfC into a circus, as was the case with Bonaparte's trolling on Anittas' first RfC. We should prevent filing slanderous RfCs, as the one filed by POV-pushers against dab. The only solution is to make a RfC more difficult for trolls to launch. We should institute a certain suffrage. The RfC should be allowed to proceed only if a certain number - say five - editors, including one admin, certify the basis of the dispute. -- Ghirla | talk 10:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that forbidding AFD participation would not be a bad thing in the case of some users under RFC (e.g.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich).
143.239.138.63 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Stifle 16:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to login)
I feel this is attempting to fix something which isn't broken. Disruption of Wikipedia is already a blockable action. I can't see why we need to turn Wikipedia into the Security Council of the United Nations, with ensuing arguments over the precise nature and wording of an RFC, and whether reverting a vandal in an article constitutes editing an article from which the user is precluded from editing via an enforceable RFC. Let's remember that the only rules worth breaking are the one's written down, and not add to the morass of complications a wikipedian must entail simply to help create an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a beaureaucracy. In fact, Wikipedia is not perfect. Let's allow arbcom to handle all this stuff. Sure, there will be points when arbcom gets it wrong, but hey, I'm inside the glass house too, so who am I to start throwing the stones. This proposal is far too open to abuse and could well lead to editor's imposing their will within certain pockets of Wikipedia. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. RFC's are useful as they stand, in that it allows people to express their feelings on a given subject without the fear that expressing such opinions could lead to inappropriate conclusions. Let's not turn RFC's into votes on punishment, let's not reduce actions to black and white binary polls, let's not create stocks on Wikipedia, let's assume good faith and when it breaks down, let us shrug our shoulders and start again. Wikipedia is not perfect. Hiding talk 20:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Overall, I support this proposal, as a second step in the dispute resolution process, though I have still seen cases where an RfC did help to defuse a problem, without further escalation needed.
Comments about the policy right now are as follows:
Hope that helps! Elonka 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The better solution is (always has been) to change the arbitration process so cases are heard by smaller panels. I generally trust the arbitrators, given that we've approved virtually all of them by now, and Jimbo has as well. Certainly I could trust two-thirds of any panel, no matter its composition, taken from the current Arbitration Committee. By contrast, there's no way I'm willing to trust ten self-selected voters here, even with a two-thirds requirement. See also the dismal failure of Wikipedia:Quickpolls.
Let the Arbitration Committee take cases in panels of five arbitrators and handle cases quickly, without all the procedural overhead. The full committee can then review these decisions in more detail when necessary. -- Michael Snow 05:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Why can't we just outline remedies in summaries or outside views of an issue and if there is sufficient moral force behind them, an administrator can enforce it? I think lots of people will react negatively to the amount of mechanism, vote-counting and rules around this, when the spirit of what people are saying about admin accountability is fairly simple: RFCs only work for people who listen, and sometimes they need to be made to do so. I don't really see "RFCs with remedies" as enabling anything more than what admins can already do; it's just a way of providing further guidance for admins in the particular area of user conduct. Demi T/ C 16:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't give powers to lynch mobs -- Doc ask? 20:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The RfC against Antidote should have resulted in permabans for sock puppeting long ago, once it was proven that he made sock puppets purely to manipulate Wikipedia. Instead, however, a number of people who wrote to submit evidence against him ended up being banned based on very flimsy evidence, including people who tried to get others who were unfairly banned unbanned, and indeed that whole thing in a lot of ways led to the furore over Kelly Martin. Yet still Antidote was never blocked! Yes, RfC needs more enforcement, especially in blatant cases like that. Zordrac 19:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Because this way things get enforced before mediation is ever attempted, breaking the flow of dispute resolution. Either that or RFC needs to be moved forward or backward. However, RFC-enforcement-style proposals have been tried on other wikis, and turn out to often be inferior to what the arbitration commitee does. Caveat emptor!
Kim Bruning 14:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |