Jump to content

Requests for comment/Limit scope of RfC process

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

I propose that the requests for comment process on Meta be formally limited to:

  1. Proposed changes to global policies.
  2. Global ban proposals.

Anything else should instead be directed to other venues, like Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases.

In particular, appeals from issues taken on other wikis should be explicitly disallowed, since Meta is not an appeals court for other wiki issues.

In my experience as an admin watching the RfC process, the result, for any other use, tends to be that the process stalls forever with nothing getting done, even after several attempts to poke things. * Pppery * it has begun 05:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will instead propose the following:

As long as U4C is functional, the scope of Requests for comment does not include:

  • Cross-wiki misbehavior, excluding global ban proposals
  • Appeals of local blocks or sanctions
  • Misuse of local or global administrative rights (includes sysops, bureaucrats, CU, OS), unless there is policy explicitly allowing Requests for comment to be use a venue to remove such right (such as Global sysops and Global renamers)
  • Systemic conduct issue of individual wiki

If such issues are unabled to be resolved locally, please file a case at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases instead. Any future misplaced issues can be transferred there.

Currently there are still issues without a better place, so it should still be discussed at Requests for comment for now:

--GZWDer (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least the last two of your bullet points could meaningfully be called "proposed changes to global policies" (possibly that should be reworded to "global or cross-wiki policies") IMO. Requests for comment/Copyright violations on Macedonian Wikibooks is indeed a weird one, but there are only two reasons a wiki can have unresolved content problems:
    1. Total inaction (i.e there's nobody in authority or nobody cares)
    2. The people in authority disagree the problem is an actual problem, or refuse to deal with it.
    The second bullet point is a U4C matter (assuming it's actually substantiated). In the first bullet point, just do it yourself, requesting specific technical actions (i.e please delete this page because it's a copyvio) at GSR or SRM if necessary. There's no reason whatsoever to expect you'll be able to drum up interest from anyone else by posting an RfC here, as you can see by the level of activity of that RfC (it's near zero). * Pppery * it has begun 21:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just add the part saying, 'if there is UCoC violation, try reaching out to local enforcement bodies or reach out to U4C at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases'. There is no need to limit the scope, there can be many things that need wider discussion other than what U4C covers.--BRP ever 11:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I feel there is a need to limit the scope, which is that this process is being rampantly misused for things that clearly don't belong here, and often don't belong anywhere on Meta at all. * Pppery * it has begun 21:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Meta admins/Stewards can filter out those request and close them directing the users towards right measures if they don't belong here. Meta administrators may close and/or delete RFCs which fall under the various deletion criteria is already in the policy. The third point that GZWDer mentions isn't exactly change in global policy, or people might not see it as such. Some of the odd request that doesn't fit anywhere come to RFC, and I feel like limiting the scope there won't do us much good. If there is no participation, it can just be closed as inactive in due time.-- BRP ever 05:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose. U4C has a narrow scope. Their only function is to enforce UCoC and I can see many cases where RFC would be better than U4C. The comittee is not a global ArbCom nor it should ever be, and your proposal is making U4C one step closer to becoming one. I second BRP, instead of delegating out-of-scope RFCs to U4C we should be more proactive at closing them here; or better: pointing users to appropriate venues. A09|(pogovor) 10:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am broadly supportive of the concept. The only problem is, as some pointed out, that some cases may not be clear cut and may indeed warrant a RfC even if they are technically in a "not-allowed" category. As a result, I propose that any Meta admin or steward can close or redirect cases that are out-of-scope for RFC, like the cases Pppery mentioned. This can be appealed to an uninvolved steward. In other words, I'd like to see an override option. Leaderboard (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose U4C is for UCoC enforcement only and they're not global ArbCom. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 12:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But the problem is that Meta RfCs aren't global ArbCom either. This is acknowledging the long-buried reality that there truly is no process for handling local issues that don't amount to U4C violations. * Pppery * it has begun 13:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to Support Support this proposal. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 04:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose RfC is the largest and most popular place here for conversation until now. The place is used by many people for reporting issue long time ago, helping much the community to detect and resolve the problem, yes its efficiency can't be disapproved, so a big issue like "proposed changes to global policies" or "global ban proposals" must be seen by experienced people in correct way, U4C might be a new function, might need some time to develop. TienMinh-mun6xnChing (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TienMinh-mun6xnChing You may want to see some recent "closed as invalid" RfCs. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 08:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples:
    〈興華街〉📅❓ 08:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The U4C has been around for long enough that it clearly no longer need[s] some time to develop. The rest of this comment does not make any sense. * Pppery * it has begun 01:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose It is essential that there is a place where non-privileged editors who contribute voluntarily can point out observed irregularities on local wikipedias, especially when it comes to indications of misuse of local administrative rights. RfC is the best place for reporting issue, perhaps the only one at this time. Зорана Филиповић (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is that essential? I would disagree vehemently with that statement; the existence of a formalized third-party venue to rant about other wikis needlessly overrules their autonomy. * Pppery * it has begun 14:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is necessary for a healthy relationship within the wider community of editors on local Wikipedias. We, on sr.wiki, do not have a community of editors, so there is no autonomy that would be overridden. The only thing that exists is an informal community of administrators who violate policies, guidelines, and rules with their selective behavior, so there's no point in discussing them. Зорана Филиповић (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems overly limiting. For example, RFC would certainly be the place to bring up something like discussing the collapse of governance on a project for reasons unrelated to code of conduct issues. — xaosflux Talk 09:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. Local projects, at least the He WP, react hostilely to RFC and tend blocking the users who made it. I would supply links if needed. Louvre|Talk 21:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @לובר: Provide them here. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 14:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Limit_scope_of_RfC_process&oldid=28872156"