User:FT2/Wikipedia:Policy check (draft)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's seemed to me for a long time that there is a gap in the dispute resolution process, that would solve several problems if filled.
There is no mechanism specifically for the question "do other editors agree or disagree that edit X is (non-neutral, personal attack, abuse of policy X, etc)."
As a result, when editors disagree, there is usually one RFC at the ppoint where it gets serious, one mediation attempt, possibly one arbcom hearing. There is a lot of frustration both at the edit war or argument itself, which one or both sides consider "obviously" in breach of policy, and also at the time it can take to meander through those layers if both sides are intransigent or one editor is not acting in good faith.
Compare this to other consensus pages such as WP:AFD and many others, where a basis is given by any interested editor who states "I believe this doesn't meet acceptable standards for reason X Y and Z" and other editors express agreement, disagreement or comments.
The proposal is made that editors should have a page (not WP:RFC) where they can link one or more diffs, and ask simply, "do these diffs contravene such-and-such policy", with other editors giving agreement or disagreement.
Unlike instruction creep, the effect of this is to provide users in early-stage dispute with a quick way to get a community view whether the conduct they are complaining about is (as they might feel) unreasonable. It's likely that access to a quick impartial view that edit X isn't policy compliant, will help settle small disputes faster than RFC/RfM/RFArb are presently doing, before they snowball, and will help those processes when they do become unavoidable.
Advantages of adding such a page to dispute resolution:
-
- Lower threshold for asking non-confrontationally "is this edit okay" if a problem arises, allowing arguments to be defused earlier.
- Simplicity - any editor can quickly and easily check and respond (as for AFD)
- Neutrality - doesn't give a preference to either side
- Assists dispute resolution - if the matter escalates then a complaining party should be able to point to edits where policy check has been requested and the other party has already been judged by the community to have breached policy. Thus less evidence has to be presented and sifted at mediation and arbitration levels, significantly speeding up and simplifying those processes.
Requests for policy check (RFPC) is a part of the dispute resolution process, by which editors can seek input regarding disputes over editorial compliance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
A policy check is a request made in good faith by an editor, who feels or suspects that an edit or comment is inappropriate because it significantly breaches some policy or guideline on Wikipedia. As such RFPC is a way to obtain consensus quickly whether an editor in a dispute is acting appropriately, before the dispute escalates, or where there is simply doubt and uncertainty, in order to defuse disputes at an early stage.
Should a dispute escalate, then a record of adverse opinions at RfPC by the community will strongly substantiate alleged poor conduct by an editor. It will also clarify and facilitate further dispute resolution processes if they become necessary.
All editors in good standing are welcome to help resolve disputes by responding to RFPCs.
Contents |
[edit] Purpose of RFPC
RFPC's are intended to provide quick feedback from the community. They will therefore be archived after 5 days, and may (at any administrators' discretion) be removed in as little as 3 days if an adequate sense of community response has been achieved. Older requests can be found under /Archived requests.
Note that RFPC is not in any way a decision, nor is it in any way a binding decision. It indicates how neutral third party editors see the cited edits, which may be of use and helpful to those engaged in a dispute. There is thus no final decision, nor any need to wait for a set number of days before taking note of views expressed. But on its own, RFPC only indicates how other editors see the matter and that other editors have been consulted to test for any consensus.
RFPC therefore in essence serves as notice that the community has a particular view on some editorial matter, which a bona fide editor will bear in mind when choosing future actions or edit wordings.
[edit] Responding if an RFPC is filed over your edit
There is no need to argue or debate the matter on RFPC, since views on the matter will probably be formed on the basis of the cited edits alone. If both sides in a dispute feel the other is in breach of policy, then it is possible that sample edits from both sides will be RFPC'ed, and one or both sides may gain feedback that they are probably in breach of policy.
[edit] Making an request for Policy Check
RFPC is intended to be very simple, in order that other editors can check and respond quickly. An RFPC should provide links to specific diffs, and ask whether the diffs shown appear to show a significant contravention of a named policy or guideline.
If the edit is such that an ordinary editor unfamiliar with the subject and editing history is unlikely to be able to tell from the few diff's supplied, whether it is a breach of policy, then RFPC is probably the wrong place for it.
Please file RFPC's in the correct section, and sign with ~~~~~ in order to show only the date and time, and not a username.
[edit] Current Requests for Policy Check
[edit] Personal attacks, breaches of Wikipedia:Be civil, and threats
- Is the term "fascist" in this edit a personal attack? 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blatently non-neutral edits, and POV pushing
- UserXYZ is pushing his own viewpoint into the Elvis article. Can you confirm he is editing badly please? 13:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Words to avoid
- Is "terorist" in this sentence a POV term? 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Should be cast into "X says Y" form. But beyond that if there is doubt, try RFC for more detailed input. 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Abuse of WP:CITE
- Article ref - user:X posted that the section on sex was "venial rubbish" and "crap" [DIFF], and deleted it [DIFF]. Later after it was reverted, he instead tagged "cite needed" on every single statement in the paragraph. [DIFF]. Is this abuse of WP:CITE and breach of WP:POINT? 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sock and meat puppetry concerns
Please read WP:RFCU for information on checking whether a user is a sockpuppet. This section should only be used in the minority of cases where for some reason RFCU is unhelpful.
