Wikipedia:RFC reform

RFCs include both article RFCs and user RFCs. This is a proposed reform to user RFCs. Different interpretations of what a user RFC is have led to some disputes as to whether some RFCs are appropriate. Part of the problem is the phrase "request for comments" doesn't line up with some interpretations of how a user RFC should be used. Either some people are interpreting user RFCs as more punitive than they are intended and the instructions need clarification, or user RFCs are more punitive than the instructions reflect and the instructions (and name) need to be updated.

Article RFC
An article RFC is used by editors who have a content-related issue. The intent is that some consensus clearly emerges from the comments, the editors involved agree to follow that consensus, and the dispute is resolved.

User RFC
A user RFC is used by editors who have an issue with another editor who they believe is violating policy. The editors write up the violations, show their attempts to resolve the dispute with the editor, and provide diffs for all their work.

The accused editor then provides their response.

Outside editors can then endorse one side's story or another, and they also have the option of writing their own outside comment.

The intent is that both sides air their complaints, outside editors come in and make their comments known, and perhaps a consensus emerges. The involved editors then agree to follow that consensus, modify their behaviour, and the dispute is resolved.

Reform
The phrase "Request for comments" comes from internet protocols being written up and posted in public sites for people to give comments on them. The intent was that a consensus would emerge that would either say adopt the proposed protocol, or perhaps change somethign about it and then adopt it.

Some people do not relate to user-RFC's in this manner. Some editors view a user RFC to be the equivalent of putting an editor in the stockade and that filing a user-RFC should be reserved as a measure of last resort.

If this is the case, then the phrase "user-RFC" should be changed to reflect this more serious nature. If this is not the case, then the RFC page should clarify that user-RFC's are not intended to be punitive.

Another interpretation of a user-RFC is that it is used for editors who have repeatedly violated policy and attempts to get them to change their behaviour have failed. A user-RFC is then an attempt to bring in outside (neutral, uninvolved) editors who can form a consensus that the editor is indeed violating policy, and hopefully get the editor to see this and modify their behaviour voluntarily. This interpretation requires that the editor in question is not beyond reforming themselves, therefore it is not a measure of last resort. Also, this interpretation of user-RFC's does not mean that all the editors contributions are negated, or that the editor should leave wikipedia, only that the editor is violating policy and needs to change their behaviour around that policy.

Rename to Public Hearing
If user-RFC's are intended to be a method of last resort for unrepentant trolls, then the name should be changed to something that reflects the more serious nature of this step in the dispute resolution process. I recommend the phrase "Public Hearing", since "public" reflects the public nature of the process (as opposed to the closed hearing that occurs with the arbitration committee), and "Hearing" reflects the seriousness of the process.

The form currently used for user-RFC's reflects a legal system, with areas to list "charges", policies that were "violated", "evidence" of disputed behaviour, and "evidence" to show others had tried to resolve this behaviour and failed. The accused then gives their "response". The public (editors) then "hear" everything and give their comments.

clarify instructions
If user-RFC's are not intended to be a method of last resort reserved only for the worst case trolls, then the instructions for user RFC's need to clarify what a user-RFC is. Given that there are editors on wikipedia that view user-RFC's to be a horrible measure, the ambiguity as to what a user-RFC is and is not, has created different interpretations among editors.

Changes to user RFC form
If a user-RFC is not intended to put editors in the stockades, then it might help if the RFC form read lesss like a legal document, and more like two sides who have a dispute that they've been unable to resolve.

If a user-RFC is intended to read like a legal document, then renaming it to "Public Hearing" to reflect the seriousness would clarify when to use such a measure. As it is, the prosecution/defense layout engenders a confrontational tone, and is more geared to describing the dispute than resolving it.

Changes to post-RFC handling
If a user-RFC is intended to be a serious option of last resort, then they should remain part of the archived records for all time. A user-RFC could be submitted to arbcom as evidence of an editor violating policy.

If a user-RFC is intended to resolve a dispute, then it can remain active while the dispute remains unresolved, but after the dispute is considered resolved, the rfc could be deleted. If a user-RFC is not intended to be punitive, then it would encourage a free exchange of comments if it were known that the comments made and the outcome of the RFC could not be used in arbitration. If this is the case, then if a user-RFC fails to resolve something, then editors would have to re-submit comments for arbcom to consider them, and the fact that a RFC "failed" is not considered a sign of guilt, but simply an indication that the issue failed to get resolved and arbitration is needed.

modifying the process
The current dispute resolution is shown in the table on the right.

If public hearings are considered to be the last step to arbitration, then the process might look like this:


 * Arbitration: public hearing, request for arbitration, arbitration committee.

This would reflect the more serious nature of a user-RFC that some editors view the process.

Or, if the user-RFC is a less drastic measure than this, it could remain named a user-RFC, and the instructions could be clarified as to under what circumstances to file a user-RFC.