Talk:Requests for comment/Improvement of global ban policy
- Surely. I thought this had already been done, but apparently not. RadiX∞ 20:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
On en.wiki, user RfCs used to require a cosignature. (They have now been completely discontinued.) Reviewing prior global ban requests, I have seen them to soemtimes be massively disruptive, and a single disgruntled user, even if qualified as shown in the draft, should not be able to create this unilaterally.
Standard deliberative process, to open a discussion, requires a second. A category called "Proposed user ban discussions" could be created, so a single proposer could file that (even an IP, perhaps), but with an IP proposal, any registered user could remove the category as disruptive and tag the page for deletion (if not protected). With a registered user, it could be maintained and when there is a second, the actual RfC would be opened for comment.
In standard deliberative process, anyone may object to a motion being considered (even when seconded), and vote is immediate without discussion. Basically, democratic organizations figured out, centuries ago, how to be both open, fair and efficient. We could learn from that. Instead, users burn out, or devolve to knee-jerk responses.
A substantial period of time should be allowed for a proposal to gain a second. Absolute minimum, my opinion, 10 days. If no second appears, then anyone could close it for lack of a second. Discussion of the ban proposal itself should not be allowed until then. If it were up to me, the actual proposal page would be full-protected until and unless opened, (seconds or other discussion would be on Talk and if people want to waste their time there, it is up to them -- or until closed for lack of a second. The point is to avoid useless discussion. If one cannot find a second, success is extremely unlikely. --Abd (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)