ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Wikipedia:User RFC reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:User RFC reform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✘ This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump.

Started 04:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Closed.

There are many opinions regarding the User RFC process (WP:RFC/USER) held by a variety of people, and a number of perennial complaints about the process and its related procedures. This straw poll seeks to find out if a substantial majority of editors believe that the RFC process should be substantially changed or abolished.

This is NOT a policy proposal, nor is this poll in any way binding. This is a gauge of public sentiment. However, if public sentiment is that a certain policy would be beneficial, effort can be made towards creating a policy proposal. Voting may be evil but learning public opinion is not. If a public opinion is obvious, people may want to take it into account for their future actions or judgments.

This poll consists of a number of statements that people can express agreement or disagreement with. Feel free to comment on your opinion. I've attempted to compile all frequently-expressed statements; that should not imply that I agree with all of them. If I've missed a couple, please let me know. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The user RFC process, in its current form, is not conducive to the resolution of disputes

[edit] Agree (not conducive)

  1. Karmafist 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes, generally useless. Unenforcable pre-arbitatrions. Speak softly and carry no stick at all. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Remember what happened to KM's RFC? NSLE (T+C) 04:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Yes it helps get opinions but really doesn't do anything. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Tends to clarify what the disspute is but beyond that doesn't appear to do much.Geni 04:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. It helps generate discussion, but rarely leads to concrete resolution. — TheKMantalk 04:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. People come from miles around to "kick em while they're down" Ruby 04:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Usually it has no consequences. -- nyenyec ☎ 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Rarely accomplishes anything except increasing the probability that Arbcom will accept the case --Ryan Delaney talk 06:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Ambi 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Helps get evidence and opinions, but really doesn't try to get people to agree on any matter or connect any consequences to misconduct. - Mgm|(talk) 08:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Increasingly, problem users tend to blindly defend themselves and do not learn from criticism. David | Talk 09:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Not usually conducive--Doc ask? 10:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Only when dealing with sensible, level headed participants. Not too many of those involved in RFC's though, not too my knowledge. Most of the editors who have commented above all make good points. Hamster Sandwich 13:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. This is fair enough. Proto||type 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Yes. RFC can make all the parties come out and explain themselves, but apart from that, doesn't resolve anything. enochlau (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. There is no incentive for editors in conflict to involve themselves in RfC. It's just a place to air grievances with no resolution. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. — Matt Crypto 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Agree. There are no clear guidelines as to what it should be used for, and no guidelines for the closure and archiving of discussions (to allow parties to get on with writing a free encyclopedia). Physchim62 (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Agree, they're overly beureaucratic and completely toothless; anyone likely to listen to an rfc will more than likely already have listened, those to whom it is of use as a form of censure can easily ignore it. Hiding talk 22:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. User RFCs are just a really longwinded way of stating a problem and then doing nothing about it. - Bobet 08:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. They are conductive in exceedingly rare occasions only. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Agree, the process is notoriously abused by vexatious litigants to force their perceived enemies into a defensive position and much waste of time. (I won't tempt a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen2 by naming examples.) More of a fence to prevent this is urgently needed. It might have some effect to simply require a greater number of endorsers before an RFC is accepted, I suppose. Bishonen | talk 00:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC).
  25. Agree --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (not conducive)

[edit] Comment

  1. It depends. Usually it turns into a slugfest, because usually there is fault on both sides, but Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich seemed to reach consensus without excessive inflammatory language (easy for me to say, of course, since I'm not Gastrich). The real problem is that the RfC process lacks closure. I agree that the RfC process as currently constituted exuists mainly to tell someone they have done somethign which some others don't like, and usually they already know that. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The user RFC process, in its current form, contributes to incivility on Wikipedia

[edit] Agree (incivility)

  1. Karmafist 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes. NSLE (T+C) 04:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. As a general rule, yes. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sad but true. Hamster Sandwich 13:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Of course. aa v ^ 00:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (incivility)

  1. Not really. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Incivility isn't specifically the fault of RfC, but simply a continuation of incivil conduct from the talk pages. I wouldn't say that it contributes to the problem, but it doesn't always stop it. — TheKMantalk 04:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Per Kman --Ryan Delaney talk 06:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. No. Any incivility on RFC is a continuation of the problems brought their from other places and not in any way the fault of RFC. By the time a case gets their, people usually received multiple warnings which they choose to ignore. - Mgm|(talk) 08:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. No, per Mgm. David | Talk 09:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Hashing things out in a forum rather than throwing InstaBans around is the peak of civility. Ruby 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. The only thing that contributes to incivility is people, not process. As Ruby says, it is far more civil than some alternatives. Proto||type 14:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. no, the incivility is already there. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Agree with the above. Since nothign gets here until there is an argument, the existence of the argument is not the fault othe RfC process. But: the lack of a moderator in the process does not help to calm matters.Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Disagree. I don't think incivilty is rising as a proportion of edits, merely that it is getting more of a problem in certain sets of cases. Physchim62 (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. They are more a symptome than a cause. Users are already incivil, and they just bring that to RFCs. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User RFCs are generally viewed as merely a preliminary step to arbitration

[edit] Agree (before arbitration)

  1. Karmafist 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Happens all the time. Article RfCs actually get somewhere, user RfCs are just one prerequisit for arbcom. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. As per LV. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. I also agree with LV. Article RfCs do tend to lead to something, but user RfCs really just are a step towards ArbCom. — TheKMantalk 05:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Something to tick off on your list before going to the ArbCom. -- nyenyec ☎ 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Absolutely --Ryan Delaney talk 06:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Ambi 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. - Mgm|(talk) 08:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Yes they are, given that ArbCom usually rejects cases that haven't been to RFC. David | Talk 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Its a definate step towards ArbCom, particularily if the editors involved aren't amienable to the RFC discussions and whatever consensus has formed there. Hamster Sandwich 13:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. I thankfully have never had a dispute go all the way to ArbCom, but I wouldn't even think of going there unless I've tried RFC. enochlau (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Just a bureaucratic hurdle. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. — Matt Crypto 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. agreed. a "hurdle." aa v ^ 00:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (before arbitration)

  1. Not even that. If you give the appearence that the conflict is intense enough you can scip RFC completely.Geni 04:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Not how I view it, but then I am notoriously naive. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment (before arbitration)

I don't have enough experience on dispute "resolution" to vote on this, but I think it is a shame if users do only use RfC as a step on the way to ArbCom. Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The User RFC process is often utilized by users for the purpose of retaliation or disruption

[edit] Agree (used for disruption)

  1. Karmafist 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Seems to me that RFC is all too often a pissing match. Usually more heat than light, is the cliche that springs to mind. Hamster Sandwich 13:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. I would say "sometimes" instead of "often". User:Zoe|(talk) 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Agree. Wasn't this one of the reasons that ArbCom was set up? Physchim62 (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. most certainly. aa v ^ 00:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. ...or irrational spite. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (used for disruption)

  1. Not always. NSLE (T+C) 04:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Not often but it can be. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. I wouldn't say "often", but it can, and has. — TheKMantalk 06:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. I'm disagreeing because, although we sometimes see clearly retaliatory RfCs, I don't think they're disruptive. They tend to be spotted immediately by non-involved users. David | Talk 09:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. These are usually fairly obvious. Proto||type 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sometimes of course, but there do exist valid RFCs with valid grievances. enochlau (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sometimes, perhaps not often. — Matt Crypto 00:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

  • I'm torn. I've seen bad faith RFC's where the only purpose seemed to be disruption or retaliation, but I've also seen good faith RFC's that simply ended up being disruptive due to the process involved. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As with Locke, this is true at times, but not in all cases. Ambi 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The disruption involved is often caused by escalation of the conflict which RFCs bring with themselves. Retalitory RFCs happen, but won't get community backing. - Mgm|(talk) 08:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Locke Cole. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The biggest abuse of this process that I've seen did not involve RfC, but was by CheeseDreams, who ignored this step & just complained straight to the ArbCom. Even if RfCs are abused & this problem is fixed, troublemakers will just find another, probably more powerful tool to reach their goals. -- llywrch 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The User RFC process has no teeth since there is no enforcement of the consensus

[edit] Agree (useless, no enforcement)

  1. Karmafist 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. NSLE (T+C) 04:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Ruby 04:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. User RfCs can damage reputations, but that in itself doesn't solve the underlying problems that led to the RfC in the first place. — TheKMantalk 05:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. It can do damage but it needs some good enforcement to work. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. No consequences. -- nyenyec ☎ 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. It has teeth, but without enforcement, people with grudges take it about as serious as Mediation. - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Sadly, have to agree. Would be good if problem users took on board the views expressed there, but so few do so, and largely because there are no consequences to an RfC going against them. David | Talk 09:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. No way to enforce a consensus at RFC. We depend on the good sense of the participants to abide by the consensus. If they don't, they go to ArbCom for official comments and sanctions if necessary. Hamster Sandwich 13:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. The biggest problem with RfC. It needs teeth. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (useless, no enforcement)

  1. The shear ammount of damge they can do to reputation means they have teeth.Geni 04:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. This is worded as if this is a problem. RfCs have always been a means of showing community opinion and discussing, not try to lynch people (as with the failed quickpoll experiment some years ago). Involved parties shouldn't be determining the fate of people they have a grudge against. Ambi 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    True, but uninvolved third parties should have a little more freedom in making decisions here. - Mgm|(talk) 08:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. per Ambi, RFCs are not for sanctions but, surprisingly enough for 'comment' - enforcement is for Arbcom --Doc ask? 10:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. The C stands for comment, not 'whacking stick'. Proto||type 14:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Ambi says it well. The whole idea is that it isn't enforceable, and that hopefully users can resolve their dispute with the aid of others. It's not desirable that every decision on Wikipedia is enforceable. enochlau (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. It seems to me that an RfC is exactly as enforceable as the community wants it to be. If the RfC has a strong consensus that a particular user is pushing a POV, needs to back off or is attacking people, then if they repeat that behaviour any passing admin can justifiably take stronger and swifter action based on that consensus than if no such consensus existed. Is that wrong? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Disagree with both points. Discussion of user actions can be useful without any need for the enforcement of sanctions. And consensus reached on user RfCs can be enforced through the modification of the wording of policy or guidelines (for example) or through the modification of the behavious of admins (especially on "close-call" decisions). Physchim62 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The User RFC process should be abolished. Issues that currently go to RFC should go directly to Arbcom instead.

[edit] Agree (scrap, straight to AC)

[edit] Disagree (scrap, straight to AC)

  1. Reform, don't abolish. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Indeed. NSLE (T+C) 04:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. There needs to be at least some community based stage.Geni 04:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. The ArbCom wouldn't be able to handle the load. -- nyenyec ☎ 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Not every RfC is suitable for ArbCom, and there is no way they could handle the load. Reforming RfC would be a better way of going about it. Ambi 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. No. Try to reform first. We can always try getting stuff straight to arbcom later. - Mgm|(talk) 08:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. No, per Geni. ArbCom should be kept for the really important disputes where community based rulings have been inadequate. David | Talk 09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. --Doc ask? 10:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. As per Ambi, on this point. Hamster Sandwich 12:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. And definitely not a "sub-Arb-Com" - as soon as portmanteaus reach three parts, you know you've got instruction creep up the ying yang. Proto||type 14:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Sending everything to ArbCom would overwhelm them. Also the idea of having all dispute resolution handled by just a few people is not comforting; I trust the ArbCom members, but RfC allows just about anyone to come along and say a few words on what they think should happen. enochlau (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. If there were some way to get those who disagree sanctioned prior to an RfAr, then the RfC process would be useful. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. I agree with Ambi. Not all RfCs are suitable or meant for ArbCom. — TheKMantalk 18:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Hell no. Arbcom are already overloaded. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Disagree as per Ambi. Some sort of RfC process is useful, whether or not it stays exactly in its present form. Physchim62 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's things that could be fixed, but there are others that aren't. Solve the incivility issue and you don't have to do away with User RFCs. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other

  1. Karmafist 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC), they should go to a "sub arbcom" of some sort to reduce workload on the main arbcom.
  2. I agree with Karmafist on this idea but we should be careful about enforcement. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Karmafist. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Make arbcom's two-parters, one a solemn fact-gathering phase that is similar to our current RfC process, and the other part the actual arbcom. This will give a certain inevitability yet respect for the process that will address both the "no teeth" objection and the incivility objection. Ruby 14:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. That is the germ of an idea. If there is a strong consensus in an RfC then we could ask Arbcom to endorse it after review and enforce any proposed resolutions. Many RfCs don't form a strong consensus. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The User RFC process should be abolished, and the community should devise a less destructive method of dispute resolution to take its place

[edit] Agree (scrap, new method)

  1. Ambi 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. If there is a better way to go, I'd like to see it, before dismissing any novel approaches out of hand. Hamster Sandwich 12:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Merge RfC into ArbCom, make the opening phase of the expanded ArbCom open for all to comment. Ruby 14:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (scrap, new method)

  1. NSLE (T+C) 04:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. It's only perceived as destructive by the people undergoing it. Less "destructive" ways have even less teeth and chance at actually enforcing community opinion. -Mgm|(talk) 08:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Try to fix it, if that doesn't work, do something else. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Disagree. The community hasn't devised this new method yet, so we have to tick with user RfC. If and when a new method comes into being it may or may not supplant user RfC as we know it. See the long debates on deletion reform. Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neither agree nor disagree (scrap, new method)

  1. Make the RfC process work to resolve disputes, or do something different. Whichever way would have the best chance of success. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The User RFC process should be retained, but to deal with the issues of perceived toothlessness, RFC consensus decisions should be enforceable on the participants

[edit] Agree (retain and enforce decisions)

  1. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. NSLE (T+C) 04:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Yes. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Yes, but enforcement should only be done by people not personally involved in the dispute (or closely related to those who are). - Mgm|(talk) 08:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. I agree as per Mgm above. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. As usual I agree with Mgm. That is an excellent idea. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (retain and enforce decisions)

  1. Renventing quickpolls strikes me as a bad idea.Geni 04:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. As with Geni, the return of quickpolls would very much concern me. Involved parties should not be deciding the fate of an editor they have a grudge against; let cooler heads make the final decision. Ambi 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. per Ambi - sanctions are for Arbcom not lynch mobs --Doc ask? 10:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. It is for ArbCom to decide long term sanctions and probationary measures. Hopefully the editors involved in a particular RFC dispute process are capable of acting constructively on the advice they have been offered at the RFC level.Hamster Sandwich 12:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Again, it's a request for comment, not a request for justice. Although setting up a Request for Justice policy would be awesome. Proto||type 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. I object to enforceability imposed by anyone apart from the ArbCom. enochlau (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. RfCs should be used to generate discussion, and then to figure out where to go from there. Requests for Comment should not be used to deal out judgement and punishment. — TheKMantalk 18:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Weak disagree, mainly with the wording of the question. A free-for-all with teeth is an invitation for a lynch mob and would only make matters worse. This doesn't mean that some enfocement provisions couldn't be added (but carefully). Physchim62 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Per Ambi. This would destroy RFC's usefulness. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The User RFC process should continue, but should be mediated or moderated in some way so that it does not remain an outlet for general airing of nonspecific grievances

[edit] Agree (retain but mediate)

  1. --LV (Dark Mark)04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. NSLE (T+C) 04:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Would be a step in the right direction. -- nyenyec ☎ 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Would be a step in the right direction, but I'm not sure how it would work. Ambi 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. This would require some specifics before I could give it my full support, but it's a step in the right direction. - Mgm|(talk) 08:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. The RFC process needs a kind of "referee" to help maintain order and help keep the comments on topic and at a civil level of discussion. Hamster Sandwich 12:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Yes, with a suggestion - what about requiring an approval from an arbitrator / member of the mediation committee / bureaucrat / some people in a specially designated role, determined by the Arbcom (pick any or all) before being allowed to proceed as an RfC? Keeps things to two layers of procedure (good thing) and helps eliminate any foppish or squabbly RfCs (good thing). Proto||type 15:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. It needs more direction I think. RfCs need to get monitored a little more perhaps. Without making it process-heavy, it should be like a production line - start RfC, get it commented on, get it out of there. Currently, I get the feeling that a lot of RfCs have mould on them because they haven't seen daylight (someone's screen) for many months. enochlau (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. I don't have any concrete proposals, but there needs to be something done. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Moderation would be a good way to keep an RfC focused. — TheKMantalk 18:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Yes, please, moderation, active WP:RPA and preferably either timed closure or closure proposed by moderators. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Excellent idea. — Matt Crypto 00:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Agree. Interesting proposal, although who would do the moderating? There are already plenty of people who distrust admins in general, even though the overwhelming majority of admin work is completely uncontroversial. The RfC moderators would have to deal with people who feel aggrieved and wish to express their greivances in an inappropriately forceful manner, as well as the staight-out trolls. Physchim62 (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Senisble proposal, but the devil is in the details. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree (retain but mediate)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -