Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments)

message: 1) I think that generally accepted Wiki-terms need to be defined.  For example, the article should state what "diffs" are.  While expirienced users may know what these terms are, the inexpirienced may not.  This helps bring all players to the same level.
:I've explained "diffs". Does anything else need explaining? jguk 15:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the process encourages sock puppet entries. Usually if people are concerned about sockpuppets they check edits in the "user contributions" section. Most sockpuppets contributions give them away as sock puppets (but not necessarily whose) instantly, jguk 15:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: No authority other than being fellow Wikipedians, who are presumably interested in helping to resolve the dispute, jguk 15:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: The RfC process cannot result in a suspension. Only the ArbCom and Jimbo can authorise a suspension, jguk 15:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Vendetta actions are unlikely to gain the support of Wikipedians not directly involved in the dispute. Often they do not even gain the support of Wikipedians in the dispute either. If an RfC has merit, the user(s) involved are expected to change their behaviour. If they do not, then the dispute will proceed to mediation and/or arbitration. At the arbitration stage, suspensions/bans/edit paroles may be imposed, jguk 15:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: If a dispute continues despite the RfC, it will escalate to mediation/arbitration. The ArbCom considers the behaviours of all disputants, and an aggressive approach by someone who has not looked to resolved the dispute properly at earlier stages in the dispute resolution process will be frowned upon, jguk 15:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: In answer to your first question - it doesn't. A user who is difficult over just one topic, but is perfectly ok on everything else, should look to modify their behaviour when dealing with that one topic (or perhaps just not edit anything connected to that topic). If a case does go to ArbCom, they do consider behaviour overall, but generally good behaviour does not excuse bad behaviour on a selected article. See, for instance, the recent "Everyking" case on WP:RfAr, jguk 15:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts when reading the draft

message: I think this is too legalistic and cumbersome. I expect that by the time most people get to RFC, usually all parties are already frustrated.
I think we need something simpler to head things off before they get to that point. Maurreen 02:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, could the problem be in the format? It seems to build on a previous "legacy" format, that through numerous changes may have become too cumbersome. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 15:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes, see what you think. Maurreen 20:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, your changes were clear and concise.  I also liked how you made the process a postive one. And I like that you added in that those requesting the comment should make their desired outcome known upfront.  I still feel pretty strongly though about the rights of the person who is the subject of the comment, and the issue of any involved party harrassing/needling one and other during the RfC. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 20:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that the open time is fine, after all, interested parties do need time to particpate.  As for the two people who need to certify within the 48 hours, I say yes, that the ones certifying the RfC should have to demonstrate their indivdual attempts to solve the problem.  Doing so keeps people from starting the RfC as a vendetta.  My feeling is if you're going to start something like this, you need to demonstrate that you have made serious attempt to solve the problem, not just threaten someone with an RfC and then lurk about waiting for something to happen. As for the harrassment issue, I think its important enough to stick with. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs streamlining

message: I have made the following tweaks. Note that the project page actually shows three things - what the RfC project page would look like; what a RfC for user conduct would look like; and what a RfC for admin conduct would look like. Maybe this format wasn't clear enough - in retrospect, maybe I should have made three separate pages:
1. I have removed the phrase "You should also state what your goal is with the RFC (for example, what you would like the other person or persons to do or stop doing)." from the main RfC project page, as it's more appropriate for the detailed RfC on specific users/admins pages.
2. I have removed the following paragraph from the main RfC project page for the same reason: "=== Examples of conduct ===</mowiki>==
Users who place the Request for Comment are encouraged to place their examples into the appropriate section in a clear and concise manner.  Each example of conduct must be directly referenced through the use of a link.  Examples of behaviors must be documented on Wikiepdia (i.e. links to talk pages showing the conduct, links to articles demonstrating examples, etc.).  Other outside claims, such as harassing telephone calls and/or emails, which can not be documented as authentic may not be introduced.
Material from people involved in a conflict and outside views are to be kept in separate sections and each must edit only in their own sections. People involved in a conflict are not allowed to edited sections of those they are in conflict against."
3. I have not replaced it as it suggests a user goes and looks up as many Wikipedia policies, semi-policies and guidnace pages you can find and hurl them into the dispute. If behaviour is uncivil or unwelcome, it should be modified - it doesn't really matter whether there's a Wikipedia page on that behaviour. Also, this takes away the legalese of breaking a "policy" (law) and puts the focus on informal resolution.
4. I have removed the following section from the main RfC project page for the same reason: "<nowiki>== Conduct between parties during the Request for Comment period ==
Because the Request for Comment process is designed to seek a constructive outcome, users who are involved in the action should use the period in a productive way to work towards a mutual resolution.  
*During the "Request for Comment" (RFC) Wikipedians on both sides of the issue are free to discuss matters outside of the RfC, but should do so, as always, in a respectful tone.
*During an RfC, all parties must disclose all Wikipedia identities under their direct control, this involves sock puppets.  
*During the RfC, involved parties agree not to engage in the creation of new identites or sock-puppets.
*During the RfC period, comments about the conflict should occur on the RfC talk page.  This is designed to provide a centralized point at which interpersonal discussions can occur."
5. I have explained how to create a "diff" for those who are unfamiliar with the term.
6. I have reinstated the "Confirmation that the request procedures have been followed" section and removed the "Example of previous attempt(s) to resolve the conflict" section. First, to reinstate somewhere to explicitly state that the other party has been informed. Second, because of the change in structure to get away from certification. I outline my reasoning behind the second of these below.
7. I have added other suggestions to how a disputed might be resolved.
8. I have replaced the text removed at 4 with the following on each of the user conduct and admin conduct pages: "The Request for Comment process is designed to seek a constructive outcome, users who are involved in the action should use the period this page is in existance for in a productive way to work towards a mutual resolution. It is particularly important, if a successful resolution is to be achieved, that all users look towards moderating their behaviour both on and off this page."
jguk 15:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My tweaks

message: The reason why I am suggesting we get rid of certification is that it means that the RfCee (to use Maurreen's terminology) does not start off 2-1 down. Also "certification" is a harsh word if we are going to encourage a friendly approach. Hopefully this will encourage the RfCee not to take an aggressive approach to the whole process. Also, hopefully it will discourage the RfCer from trying to play a numbers game.
Doing away with the requirement for there to be 2 certifiers also allows disputes to be listed before they are wide enough to have sucked in more participants. If User A's behaviour towards User B is objectionable, but User A is always good towards everyone else, shouldn't User B be able to raised it somewhere?
This is all coupled with the proposed change in the time limits. At present, RfCs are meant to be removed after 48 hours if fewer than 2 people certify them. Once certified, there is no actual process allowing for their removal (though in practice the really old ones have dropped off the list). I see no value in keeping RfCs on old disputes - if they are resolved, they should be forgotten about and people should move on. If they are not, they escalate to mediation and/or arbitration anyway. By making sure that a RfC is not a permanent "black mark" on your Wikipedia-life is useful in terms of encouraging amicable resolution - and, I hope, discourages the RfCee from taking an aggressive approach.
So to my mind, there should be a time limit for RfCs to be removed, hence my proposing one - being 14 days after creation, or 3 days after the last new user has made a contribution, if later, jguk 15:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale behind change in certification/time limits

message: :Does this mean we are agreed that the current version of the draft can go live, or are you wanting to propose an alternative deletion rule before it goes live? jguk 10:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I proposed that there be no trouble about keeping copies of the RFCs. That was my alternative version. Maybe you can suggest another option. I don't see any consensus yet. Maurreen 12:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. (By which I mean that whilst I don't agree with it, I will live with your proposed amendment.) jguk 12:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, jguk 13:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added: "After that, it will be deleted. But users are free to keep a copy on their user page." If that's OK with you, the draft is fine with me. Maurreen 13:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

message: For the RFCer, you have:
:"These suggestions may include offers by the user initiating this request as to how they might modify their approach, how you might modify your behaviour, or an offer to take a break from editing particular pages."
For the RFCee, you have:
:"... suggestions as to how they and the person initiating this RfC might modify their approach, or an offer to take a break from editing particular pages."
They are not parallel. I'm not sure whether you're suggesting that each consider ways both might change their approach, or what. Maurreen 07:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to say that the RfCer should consider what he alone, or what the RfCee alone, or what both may do to help resolve the dispute. And that the RfCee does the same. Though I had trouble phrasing it, as you've seen:) jguk 08:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked the wording. See what you think. I'll try to expand on No. 1 above later. Maurreen 08:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Parallel suggestions