Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Enforcement

Some preliminary comments
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_ &gt;|&lt; 14:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

--Deathphoenix 19:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have suggestions on how to make it less bureaucractic, I'd be happy to hear them. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The part about recusal ("Admins may not vote"...) seems like it isn't broadly worded enough to cover all possible situations where conflicts of interest might occur. The ArbCom's recusal rules are spelled out, and we could link to those instead, though in the interest of less bureaucracy, perhaps just the "use common sense" bit would be sufficient.  --Interiot 17:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "use common sense" would be sufficient. What we don't want to happen is for the recusal rules to be so broad that the subject of a vote attempts Wikilawyering a large number of admins into recusing from a vote. We're not a bureaucracy, so we can always ignore an admin's vote if he's obviously involved in the dispute. However, admins should not have to recuse simply for being involved in the attempted resolution of the dispute. Carbonite | Talk 18:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposal. As a "ArbCom Lite", there needs to be a clearly-defined limit on exactly what sort of enforcement actions can be made to a user based on an RfC. Since ArbCom has a limit of one year for hard bans, I say RfC enforcement should have a maximum of, say, one month. Since it's much harder to keep track of admins than it is to keep track of ArbCom members, I think the actual voting page for enforcement should be protected. Anyone can make a "Request for Enforcement" on the particular RfC, but it must be an admin who actually creates an Enforcement subpage and only admins can edit that page (anyone can post to the talk page, of course). Hence, I figure the process would go something like this (if it went all the way to enforcement):
 * An RfC is posted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User.
 * The RfC gets certified by two users.
 * After several comments, one or more users creates a standardised "Request for Enforcement" section with proposed enforcement, the name of the user that requires enforcement (not necessarily the subject of the RfC) and reasons why it should be enforced.
 * An administrator effectively "certifies" this request by copying the request to a new subpage and protecting it: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User/Enforcement.
 * After some level of majority (should be fairly high), an administrator enacts the enforcement on the user.
 * Yes, but it may be easier to have all requests for enforcement on a single page (they'd be short anyway), so that people can watch that. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Added "nor if they otherwise have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of the motion." - is that sufficient? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:05, 21 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 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)

Notification
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)
 * Yes, I agree of course. The RfC enforcement process should closely resemble RfAr enforcement. --Deathphoenix 19:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Added "If the motion passes, similar notification must be given". Please reword if insufficient. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Adimin Votes more importnat?
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)
 * It's explained at the top of this talk page. First, admins are the only ones capable of enforcing a motion (by using blocks). And second, not infrequently a group of partisan, biased or POV users attempt to have other views of any issue discounted (for instance at WP:RFC by accusing people disagreeing with their point of view of all sorts of infractions). It would be improper to let such a crowd sway the issue. Admins are supposed to have more common sense than the average person, because they wouldn't be admins otherwise. And third, it is not a vote; it is a consideration whether the Wikipedia would be improved (or a conflict alleviated) by temporily restricting a problematic user from exhibiting problematic behavior. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I read a bunch RfCs yesterday trying to understand this policy and now I understand even less why admins votes should be more important.  Obvoiusly an admin has to agree with what was decided to enforce this measure, but seriously you are turning admins into judges with this.  And no one voted on admins for there ability to judge others.  I certainly don't believe admins are any better or have more common sence than other editor.  I am sure some of are best editors are admins and some are not. And there are admins that are biased and defenfensive and insulting as well, just as some editors are.  Read some RfCs and you will also see that.  The only difference between admins and the other editors is that admins take time to play the political game and other just go about their work without the handshaking and baby kissing.  This policy as is written is really not going to work unless there is a reaffirmation consensus of all current admins.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  16:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I support Birgitte's dictum absolutely. Well said. --Ghirla | talk 10:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah the admin part worries me a bit too, Radiant. Is there anyway to have it be, say, 'n' edits (where 'n'=1000 or whatever) instead? Maybe that would be too hard to enforce? But edit counts are easy to access. Granted that doesn't prove the person hasn't made 1000 stupid or POV edits, but usually not, and admin status doesn't prove suitability either. The thing about admins only is, yes, they can be assumed to be experienced editors, but at the same time, admins deal with jerks and vandals all the time and maybe it (quite naturally) makes some of them a little less patient than they might be at this early stage.Herostratus 08:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't quite agree with you, but very well. Some kind of suffrage would probably be appropriate, but I'd like to hear some more opinions on that. For now, I've written that only uninvolved users can vote on it. By the way, it's a wiki, you can Edit this proposal. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about changing it to something more like AfD... admins make the final determination (and thus, can discount users who are disruptive to the process, and the rules for discounting votes can be somewhat flexible and uncodified), but the admins must/should follow the consensus of well-reasoned users.  --Interiot 09:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the questions of admins voting is supposed to mirror WP:RFAR: only arbitrators can vote on arbitrator actions, so only admins can vote on admin actions. However, I think editors voting on RfC enforcement would be a good thing as long as there is a strict suffrage and the types of actions enforceable on Wikipedia are extremely limited, and the enforcement/punishment is itself extremely limited (either in time, or only to certain types of articles rather than a Wikipedia-wide ban). The importance here is that RfC should not be responsible for banning a user for a year: only ArbCom (or Jimbo, or Wikimedia Board of Trustees) should do that. --Deathphoenix 17:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

adminship is no big deal
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 Requests for comment. --JWSchmidt 14:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am proposing such changes at Requests for comment, based on the many opinions that RFCs are not taken seriously enough at the Admin Accountability Poll. This does not change the nature of adminship; blocking disruptive users has been an essential admin task for years now. The enforcement proposal simply makes it easier to locate disruption in specific cases, and put a stop to specific bad behavior without restricting the user affected from good-faith editing. Finally, I dispute your claim that people are "often made admins without any significant experience in editing articles and with no indication of wisdom in article content disputes"; please provide evidence thereof? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to change the nature of Requests for comment, then you should suggest changes at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. If what you want to do is make it easier for admins to "locate disruption", then you should explain why this cannot be accomplished with Administrators' noticeboards. I suspect we have different views of "significant experience" with respect to editing Wikipedia articles. A review of Requests for adminship reveals many successful candidates who cannot list any  significant contributions to meaningful Wikipedia articles. Such candidates are usually made administrators because of their demonstrated janitorial efforts. It is not a safe assumption that such administrators can start making wiser decisions in RfCs than non-admins. --JWSchmidt 16:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to change the nature of Requests for comment, then you should suggest changes at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. There's nothing wrong with creating a subpage of RfC to discuss this proposed change. What is wrong, however, is not linking to this page from RfC's talk. :) I've fixed this already. If what you want to do is make it easier for admins to "locate disruption", then you should explain why this cannot be accomplished with Administrators' noticeboards. Input on ANI is limited, and its discussions are often archived very quickly out of necessity. What we need is something between ANI (which is for handling vandals, terribly disruptive users, etc.) and arbcom (which is for handling users who have made both good and bad edits, but takes dreadfully long to work out things, making it useful only for mega-big disputes). An RfC with teeth is this something in between. It is not a safe assumption that such administrators can start making wiser decisions in RfCs than non-admins. Which is why the community has input, too. The admins should enforce the community will unless they feel there's a reason to do otherwise, in which case, they can explain themselves. It's a process of checks and balances, if you will. (Standard disclaimer: WP:NOT a real government.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Jwschmidt, you made a lot of unsubstantiated allegations in your post. Please check those and provide diffs (in particular, you claim once more that many users pass RFA without having meaningful experience editing articles, but you fail to point out a single candidate). Also, you mistake Wikipedia for a system of law. It doesn't matter if this is a subpage of RFC and it doesn't matter what we call it. And you forget that administrators already had judge-like powers for several years now. What matters is if this is a good idea. WP:AAP implies it is. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * the idea that admins' votes count for more will not fly, don't even try proposing that.
 * But apart from this, the idea that remedies can be "consensus-voted" on, and then be binding until the arbcom says otherwise sounds like a feasible suggestion. If 80% of people commenting on an RfC endorse a certain remedy, I suppose it makes sense (why trust "consensus" on AfD but not on RfC?).
 * The downside is that it will lead to histerical flurries of witchhunt-rfcs, so I would be wary about more "procedure creep".
 * If we had an able and swift arbcom in place, I expect this proposal would be superfluous. If we had, say, 20 arbitrators who [informedly] churn through a case in a couple of days (instead of months, as of now), the whole system would again look much cleaner. dab (&#5839;) 18:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I don't think we should assume in advance that it will lead to witch hunts (because, lots of people assumed that an open vote on the next ArbCom would end up as a nasty mudslingfest, and plain fact is that it did not). This is not intended as a vote, please don't make it one. If you read over past RFCs you will note that it's general the admins and other "vested contributor" outsiders who make the most levelheaded comments, not the heavily involved users, who tend towards factionalizing POV. So the point is that the injunctions should be decided upon by those levelheaded people, not the heavily involved users. This in fact is a major step towards preventing witch hunts. Admins are supposed to be level-headed, if they're not they wouldn't be admins. If you can think of a better way to filter level-headed users from potential POV pushers, I'd be happy to hear it. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly support this idea, even though yes, it does change the nature of adminship, if there is also put in place a way to remove admins that is effective. Not because rogue admins can ride roughshod, because they will get outvoted by the vast majority of other admins, as long as they have time to keep an eye on this, yet another process (I envision someone building a vast "control panel"/"dashboard" page that shows what is happening with all the different processes... we metawikipedians have a lot to watch these days! half a dozen different XfDs, RfAs, RfCs, RfArs, and all the polls, elections, ad hoc policy discussions, etc, it can be a bit much)... not because they can ride roughshod but because a removal process will make it be perceived as a fairer mechanism by those of us who are not admins (and perhaps don't want to be admins). And I echo those who thank Radiant for all the efforts being made in this area, but how is he getting anything else done? (his talk says he's supposed to be on break, studying or some other real life folderol, I can't quite recall...) ++Lar: t/c 07:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am, but wiking is addictive :) as indicated in the WP:AAP, many people have suggested that the ArbCom be more stringent in removing adminship from troublesome people. I think it's not possible to watch all processes but that's up to individual editors really. Most people specialize in a few. Heck, not even all admins read the admin noticeboard. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  11:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiNomic
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)


 * There should of course be an exception clause stating that people can avoid accountability for their actions by simply declaring the entire community to be idiots. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 16:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See that thing a mile in the sky above you? That's the point - David Gerard 17:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See that large wooden log in your eye? No? I thought as much. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't solve a lynch mob mentality by making lynch mobs enforceable - David Gerard 17:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That depends on what you make enforceable. If you allow the mob to block or ban the user involved, that would be bad. OTOH, if you allow the mob to disallow one specific action that they consider disruptive, that would give them a sense of justice done and cause them to stop mobbing.
 * In Kelly's particular case, the enforcement could be "Kelly is to stop deleting userbox templates for three weeks". From her point of view, this is moot, since she hasn't deleted any userbox templates since the RFC started anyway. From the mob's point of view, they are being listened to and offered a reasonable compromise. There'd likely be a few rabid dogs who'll continue mobbing anyway, but most users are less than rabid and would consider this a reasonable solution, and move on. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's still not just and it's still not right. Lynch mob mentality is bad. I don't see how making it a part of the rules is actually a good thing. For another example, look at the present AFD debates - AFD has numbers on its side for mobbing, but it's causing the Foundation real day to day problems, so the Foundation has been starting on the smackdown of it (see Jimbo's recent messages on the subject on wikien-l). Because the mobs in question are actually wrong, and throwing them a bone won't make them stop thinking mobbing will work - David Gerard 17:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's leave AFD out of this; I know it's a mess but it's unrelated to RFC. I should also point out that it is rare for RFCs to actually turn into lynch mobs. It is far more common for an RFC to be ignored by its subject. Generally this doesn't lead to anything, but sometimes ignoring people's concerns serves to aggravate the matter. Make RFCs less ignorable and you will have less hard feelings, and by consequence less lynch mobs. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 18:14, 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? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer your question - of the 130 users who opposed her deletion of templates, I count 16 admins, or 12% (judging from memory who is and is not an admin; if you want, you can get an absolute count from Special:Listusers). From the 13 users who opposed this so-called lynch mob, I count 6 admins, or 46%. Of the 37 users who mildly asked that Kelly not ignore the concerns, I count 12 admins, or 32%. Note also that there are less admins inside the so-called lynch mob than outside of it. This supports my claim that admins are far more reasonable than the average user.
 * However, this is really beside the point. RFC enforcement (as written) can only enforce that a user desist in behavior that is seen as disruptive. The behavior in question was her deletion of 76 userboxes. The enforcement could therefore only have been to stop her from deleting further userboxes for the time being. Given the sheer controversy risen from deletion of userboxes, I can't see any harm in getting her to stop deleting userboxes. Of course, Kelly realized this of her own accord and stopped deleting userboxes when the RFC was filed, without requiring any enforcement.
 * This isn't really a good example - it's way more controversial than your average RFC, and no enforcement would have been necessary since the allegedly disruptive behavior stopped when it was filed. Most people in the RFC were in fact clamoring for an apology of sorts. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can the boundaries of RFC be drawn a little smaller, so that very controversial issues could not be handled by RFC? Kelly's RFC seemed to serve no purpose at all, and the "Motions should be local in scope, affecting one user's actions on a small number of pages" clause seems to lean in that direction anyway.  --Interiot 20:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that seriously controversial issues should be dealt with by the arbitration committee; it might be good to decide that if say, 10 admins oppose a measure, it cannot pass regardless of the support. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:10, 23 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)

A more sarcastic version of David's point
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)


 * You're just trying to make me jealous of how many uncertified RFCs you have - David Gerard 19:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * God forbid that people would actually be held responsible for their actions! Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Precautions against trolls
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)
 * This page is not about certification of RFCs, but about enforcement of them. Still, a suffrage requirement would be good (logged-in users only, e.g. minimum of 1 month / 500 edits, just to make a wild suggestion). My initial suggestion here was to restrict enforcement to admins, because all admins are trusted users. Problem is, not all trusted users are admins, so that suggestion has met with controversy. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

AFDs
I think that forbidding AFD participation would not be a bad thing in the case of some users under RFC (e.g. 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)

Disruption is already blockable
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)
 * I strongly disagree with your claim that RFCs are useful as they stand. The vast majority of RFCs falls in one of the following groups - 1.conflicts between two users (which should end up on mediation instead); 2.valid concerns with a user's behavior, that are generally ignored by the user in question; and 3.improper POV accusations by trolls. Some kind of enforcement would help with case 2, and would help against case 3 because the creators of the RFC can also have injunctions imposed. There may be better ways of changing RFC, but instead of keeping the current process we're better off scrapping it entirely and sending everything to ANI or the ArbCom. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see where you're going. Dispute resolution and the ANI are probably better ports of call than RFC for most situations.  The other cases, those that fall under category two, I think there's a liklihood you won't achieve consensus on the cases that matter.  I also hate the idea that all this stuff gets turned into a process, and then it's the process that becomes more important than the spirit.  I'm a firm believer in the idea that the only rules worth breaking are the ones written down.  I also think we're all pretty level headed that we cope with the periods where it all goes tits up.  At least, I hope we do. Hiding  talk 19:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But RFC is supposed to be dispute resolution. If you trust people to be level-headed, you must also trust people to draw the line against other people's disruptive behavior. For instance, when the ArbCom places a user on probation, any admin can step in and tell that user to stop certain disruptive behavior. That turns out to be extremely effective. This is the same idea, except that it may not be imposed by any admin at will, and requires consensus to be formed first. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 20:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, I happen to believe one of the reasons we are able to remain relatively level headed is that there is no real bonus in not being level headed. I think if we have a system such as this, it's going to lead to that level headedness being discarded in the rush to comment.  Sometimes it takes me a day or two to reason out a position, and sometimes I don't ever get to a position.  I don't think it is a good idea to have a system in place which would allow spleen venting, which is a funbction of RFC, but which also legislates based on the spleen venting.  There's always going to be conflict on Wikipedia, that's part of the process.  I think this will add conflict just as much as it removes it, and most cases will more than likely be appealed to arbcom anyway.  I guess I just don't like the idea, it's perhaps as simple as that.  I just don't want a system whereby someone can potentially be hung out to dry because there's a few people baying for it, and nobody happened to be near by with any sense.  Sure, go ahead and get arbcom to agree that if a motion is passed with beaurocrat approved consensus that they look at a case, then they look at it, but if someone is disrupting afd, for example just list them at ANI and/or block them. Hiding  talk 21:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Elonka
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)


 * 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)


 * Good idea. Changed now. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 20:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Modify arbitration instead
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 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)
 * That may be a nice idea but it has been suggested several times and has been soundly rejected by the ArbCom every time. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It has not actually been rejected by the arbitrators to my knowledge. It has encountered resistance from other people who seem to think arbitration works well enough already. It does work to some degree, but this would make it work better. --Michael Snow 18:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-bureaucratic counterproposal
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Doing the same thing with less bureaucracy involved is always good. There's no real difference between what Demi is proposing and what I am proposing, except that xe proposes putting it on the RFC pages and I propose putting it here. It's still different from how RFCs are treated now. But as long as consensus decrees that something is disruptive, then doing that something can be grounds for blocking. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * I agree with the suggestion. Anytime a large number of users can get behind a remedy that is fair and appropriate, any admin should feel comfortable enforcing that.  The problem I see is that, in practical use, the only admins that would know about such remedies are the ones involved with the RFC itself, so neutrality may be legitimate complaint. -- Netoholic @ 15:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Yes, this is the kind of enforcement I would support. First, it would change administrator's duties very little &mdash; they just don't have to spend all that time over arbcom to deal with a common troll, without the bureaucratic processes that could possibly open it to abuse. It would also encourage individuals to actually comment at RFC's based on the merit of the content. Basically, it would be something an administrator would have some form of justification to enforce even without an RFC anyway, but the RFC sort of "confirms" and validates, so basically this kind of enforcement would basically authorize administrators to cite an RFC as sort of a "confirmation" of a procedure that may have been legitimate anyway. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 22:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please!
Don't give powers to lynch mobs --Doc ask?  20:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not what we're doing, please read the above and the restrictions on this proposal. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree
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)

No RFC enforcement
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)