Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Enforcement

message: 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.
Radiant_>|< 14:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this is rather bureaucratic, I have to say I would support this proposal. There needs to be some lower level of binding dispute resolution, and where better for it to come from than the community? Johnleemk | Talk 14:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Johnleemk that dispute resolution needs some teeth at levels below the ArbCom. There is some bureaucracy in this proposal, but it doesn't seem excessive or especially complicated. Carbonite | Talk 15:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Since we are defining everything by "common sense," can we have a definition for it? When the "common sense" of one person disagrees with the "common sense" of another, which do we use? In practice, does the term mean anything more than "Whatever Carbonite says?" --Cunning Linguist 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IAR relies on common sense without defining it.  An extended heuristic might be: 2) if in doubt, see the RFAr recusal points, 3) if still in doubt, err on the side of recusing yourself, especially because there are lots of admins who can fill in for you.  (as Carbonite points out, doubt is actual ethical doubt, not wikilawyering by the person who's the subject of the vote).  --Interiot 22:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some preliminary comments

message: 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)
thread_title: Notification

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adimin Votes more importnat? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have no objection to well-intentioned efforts to help administrators keep order. However, as the name implies, RfC is about discussion. Modifying it to include court-like decisions is a major change and would be major scope creep for RfC. Giving administrators judge-like powers not available to other Wikipedians is scope creep for administrators. If there is really a need for a new level of bureaucracy between RfC and Arbcom, then why not openly propose it as such and create a new "lower court" and system for certifying those administrators who the community would trust as judges?  --JWSchmidt 17:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving administrators more "say" than is given to other Wikipedians in the proposed expanded "RfC" process is a significant change in administrator power. Such a change should be openly discussed at Wikipedia talk:Administrators, not on some new subpage for a policy article that has nothing to do with administrator powers. If "this is a good idea" then it is worth doing it right. About the idea that there are administrators who never make major contributions to Wikipedia articles; the point is that historically candidates for adminship have been evaluated based on their likely ability to perform certain tasks such as blocking vandals. If you want to give new powers to administrators (such as a new power in judging how to resolve content disputes), then there has to be a way for the community to go back and decide if existing administrators can be trusted with the new power. Administrators have not in the past been expected to make major contributions to Wikipedia articles and it is not safe to assume that all administrators can exercise good judgment about content disputes. One of the worst POV warriors I have ever had to deal with is an administrator, so I do not buy the idea that we can automatically trust administrators with new powers in disputes over article content. --JWSchmidt 16:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with JWSchmidt on this issue. The poll which gave raise to the current discussion sought to make admins more accountable and not to transform them into judges. There are admins who get blocked almost daily for their disruptive behaviour, and I don't want them to administer justice to others. We have too many problems with admins as it is, no need to devolve further powers on them. --Ghirla | talk 10:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  adminship is no big deal 

message: 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)
replies: text: You're just trying to make me jealous of how many uncertified RFCs you have - David Gerard 19:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A more sarcastic version of David's point

message: 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)
thread_title:  Precautions against trolls 

message: 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)
thread_title:  AFDs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disruption is already blockable 

message: 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:
* There should be more information on what "certification" of an RfC means, or a link to where that information can be obtained
* The "ten editors" yardstick is good, but without an admin in the loop, they still won't be able to get anything done, no matter how many people agree.  There needs to be a mechanism by which editors can be assured that an admin will check the vote, and back up their request.
* I recommend a minimum standing for editors who wish to certify or vote.  Such as: Account for at least 30 days, with a minimum of 100 edits.  This will reduce the inevitable problem of sockpuppets
* The page should list other methods of dispute resolution besides RfC.  Such as: Wikiquette alerts, Request for Arbitration, Mediation Cabal, etc., to indicate where in that chain of appeals that this particular policy may be.
Hope that helps!  Elonka 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay, here's a concern.  If this thing does get any kind of approval, you're going to have to work out how these RFC's get closed, and you're going to have to be strict on not allowing partcicipating admins, or those who become admins after participating, to mete out the punishment.  At least, I believe so.  If you do push on with this, which I hope we don't, please make sure this idea is pushed with it.  If you are creating some sort of user administered justice system, make sure the justice is not only practised, it is seen to be practised. Hiding  talk 19:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by Elonka 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Modify arbitration instead 

message: 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)
replies: text: This I would support, too. I thought the existing proposal, though a bit bureaucratic, was fine, but if we can find ways to simplify it, why not? Johnleemk | Talk 16:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. Very simple and I don't think it requires a change in any policies. Any user can vote support or oppose to the proposed remedies, and admins can take such comments as consensus. --Deathphoenix 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *I would agree, and say that this is what we should have been doing anyway. If there's consensus, simply follow it up with the tools admins already have. A user violating strong consensus is clearly disruptive. See my note above on how I used this pretty effectively. That way it doesn't have to turn into a trolling mugging contest, and bad faith RfC's and RfC participation could be grounds for a disruption block anyway. And finally I'll second the thought that if we can accomplish the same thing with less bureaucracy we should always go that route. - Taxman Talk 00:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In which case, this page could serve a purpose as an index of enforcement measures in force. Physchim62 (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-bureaucratic counterproposal 

message: Don't give powers to lynch mobs --Doc ask? 20:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Agree 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No RFC enforcement