User:Tony Fox/Sandbox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a proposal to create a clerk system to monitor Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct; this neutral body of volunteers would provide a level of oversight and organization to what can at times be a chaotic and drawn-out process, while also generating a neutral summary of closed and archived user RfCs as a tangible end point for said process. It should be emphatically noted that this is not intended to add any bureaucracy to the process, and these users would not have specific powers; they would simply make the RfC process work more smoothly.
Contents |
[edit] Goals
This proposal is aimed at meeting several goals within the WP:RFC/USER system:
- Providing neutral parties to ensure that cases which meet the two certifying user criteria are made active quickly and efficiently, while those which fail are removed with similar efficiency.
- Ensuring that neutral parties are available to monitor ongoing RfC discussions to keep them civil and on topic, while keeping in mind the need for open discourse within the bounds of the complaint lodged by the person filing the request.
- Creating a system whereby RfC discussions are closed after a specific period, rather than leaving them open for long periods of time during which some parties may use them to attack or criticize the named editors on topics that are often outside the bounds of the complaint.
- Closing and archiving discussions in an organized manner.
- Generating a neutral summary of the cases that are closed, summarizing the complaint and, if appropriate and beneficial, the points made by each person responding with number of endorsing signatures attached.
[edit] Current state
The RfC/User system currently has a limited level of organization and oversight. Users may create a Request for Comment and, so long as it has the support of two people who attempted to solve the dispute, that RfC can be opened and may remain open for quite some time as an open-ended debate. Unfortunately, this means that there is little resolution to an RfC, and some may linger for months with minimal activity. The goal of an RfC/User is not to attack the user, but provide (hopefully positive) feedback; however, the result sometimes can be an attack, and there is little in the way of resolution to be found. In addition, a somewhat haphazard method of closing and archiving RfC cases can cause issues among users.
[edit] Proposed clerk functions
Other areas on Wikipedia – Requests for Arbitration and Requests for Checkuser, as examples – currently benefit from the services of volunteer clerks who are tasked to ensure that requests are properly formatted and processed efficiently. These uses of clerks would be a good basis to be considered for an RfC/User clerk corps.
RfC clerks would be called upon to monitor the RfC/User page and ensure that requests made for opening of an RfC are formatted properly and processed quickly. They would be available to assist users in filing these requests, and would then notify the affected users and monitor the created cases. If a case meets the required certification of two users, the clerk would move it into the “Approved Pages” section and notify the users involved of the approval.
Once a case has been approved, the clerks would be asked to monitor the ongoing discussion, watching to ensure that it is properly formatted, that extraneous dialogue is moved from the case page to the talk page, and that the parties follow the civility guidelines in providing their feedback, both towards the user in question and their fellow commenters. It would be up to the clerks on a case-by-case basis whether to request a commenter refactor their comments to remove those that may be potentially interpreted as personal attacks or anything that would be counterproductive to the process. Should the need arise, clerks would be requested to take continuing incivility to a higher body, possibly the administrators’ noticeboard or similar locations, to get further assistance.
At present, there is little to indicate when an RfC should be closed. Clerks under this system would have the ability to close and archive an RfC after a set period of time with little or no additional discussion – a week without edits (or with minimal edits – a few additional signatories, perhaps, but not full new outside views or responses) may signal that the process has run its course, and can be moved forward. Archive templates would be placed on the case page, and the link moved from the main page onto an archival listing for future reference. Other possible clerk prompted actions might include:
- refactoring comments which violate civility or other norms if participants will not do so
- ensuring that parties are informed of significant developments
- redirecting requests, where appropriate, to mediation or arbitration
- ensuring that RfCs remain focused on a material dispute and do not become a laundry list of gripes used to harrass a particular editor
At the same time as closing and archiving, the clerks would be asked to produce a concise summary of the case. This would include a short statement of the complaint and the signatories who certified the case, a summary of the response from the named editor, and summaries (one or two sentences) of each outside view along with the number of signatories for each, if they provide a substantial addition to the key views. This could be added to the top of the archived page for ease of anyone reading the archived cases, and could also be placed on the talk pages of the certifying editors and the named editor for their future reference.
It is envisaged that, as with other community debates such as articles for deletion, any uninvolved Wikipedian in good standing, or the parties by mutual consent, may feel free to close and archive an RfC where the outcome is unambiguous or uncontroversial.
[edit] Neutrality
As with Arbitration Committee clerks, RfC clerks would be asked for complete neutrality in their work. The clerk taking on each case would be indicated at the top of the case page for ease of communication and reference. That clerk would be required to remain impartial and not comment on the editor in question whatsoever; the role would only be as listed above. If the clerk has been in a situation with the named editor or the certifying editors that may affect neutrality, that clerk would be asked to recuse from dealing with the case, whereby another clerk would take it over. Should no clerks be willing to work on a specific case, they may need to seek outside assistance in ensuring neutrality is maintained.
[edit] Sample summary
These are some proposals for styles of closure summaries.
[edit] Style A
This example, using as its basis a recent RfC, provides a substantial amount of information summarized from the discussion. This style may take some time for clerks to produce, but may be useful for future reference:
The request for comment regarding [[User:Foo]], filed (date), has been closed and archived. Following is a summary of the discussion.
Three editors - (list users) - certified the basis for a dispute regarding [[User:Foo]]'s tagging of numerous images under the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. These editors felt that User:Foo 's tagging of images as fair use and removal of dispute tags on images where discussion had not taken place went beyond the requirements of the guidelines; they also expressed concern about User:Foo 's lack of communication with regards to the issue. Twelve editors endorsed the opening summary with a number of additional comments.
There was no response filed by User:Foo in response to the expressed concerns.
[[User:Foo2]] provided an outside view, breaking down his views of the situation and concluding that administrators should exercise caution when considering images tagged as {{replaceable fair use}}, and expressed a concern with User:Foo 's tone in communications with other editors regarding the issue. Ten editors endorsed the summary.
(responding user) provided an outside view stating that issues surrounding image use policy are not "cut and dry," and that User:Foo 's actions were too hasty and excessive. The outside view indicated that users must be treated with respect by all persons involved in the discussion and that trickery should not be used by editors in attempting to end a situation to their benefit. Nineteen editors endorsed the summary with various comments.
(responding user) stated that User:Foo 's tagging of images he had uploaded, as well as actions on other articles, was bordering on wikistalking, and asked that User:Foo instead work towards building consensus with other editors. Eleven editors endorsed the summary with various comments.
(responding user) stated that the RfC was in fact a clash of opinions regarding fair use policies, and asked that editors avoid non-neutral summaries. One editor endorsed the summary.
There was also substantial discussion on the talk page.
[edit] Style B
A shorter option, this would provide less direct information and eliminate the extensive paraphrasing required in the first style. However, linked to the case itself, it would provide an easy reference for anyone wishing to find more details.
The request for comment regarding [[User:foo]], filed date, has been closed and archived. Following is a summary of the discussion.
Concern was expressed regarding User:foo's use of image licensing tags and failure to engage on Talk in respect of same. Foo is now engaging on talk and the issue may be considered resolved.
Relocating to User:Tony Fox/RFC Proposal
