Requests for Comment/RfCU process

The Miraheze community was invited following the Username Policy RfC to create a Requests for Comment/Usernames page. This RfC is to establish the procedure it should follow. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - 21:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * An RfC/U may be opened to appeal an existing lock by the community at a dedicated page.

Support

 * 1) We should probably ensure the user wants to appeal first.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) should be up to the locked user. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  I agree with Zppix.  Someone gets banned and "the community" (meaning his cronies) petition to get him back?  Let the banned user petition!  If the user's response to the ban was simply to go elsewhere, we'd be wasting our time.   01:09 6-Oct-2019
 * 3) The locked user can still contact our staff or simply go with a new account. If there are any questions regarding the judgements of the stewards, it should be directed to the locking Steward and not to the whole community.-- 07:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In which case (assuming the name of the new account is acceptable), the original problem is solved!  17:35 6-Oct-2019

Proposal 2

 * An RfC/U may be opened to appeal an existing lock by the locked user by emailing stewards[at]miraheze.org to ask a steward to copy the appeal to the dedicated page.

Support
and if the user is locked from email? Gustave London (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) - Makes sense  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) *Does make sense. But "may be appealed"?  "ask a steward"?  Does the wording of Proposal 2 imply that Stewards are free to reject the banned user's request?   01:12 6-Oct-2019
 * 3) **That's not the intention of it. I wouldn't expect a steward to reject to post an appeal unless it was a clear violation of another policy (e.g. threatened users) ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  07:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) ***It's much clearer to debate wording than speculate on drafter's "intentions" or whether Stewards will have the same intentions! Clearer: Stewards shall open an RfC/U to appeal a lock if the locked user asks for it by email to stewards[at]miraheze.org, and the appeal shall include any rationale the locked user provides in the email. (1 week time limit for this notice?)   16:10 6-Oct-2019
 * In what way? ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  17:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3

 * An RfC/U may be opened by a steward to determine appropriate action.

Support

 * 1) Allows Stewards to ask if unsure.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) all users should be able to open one Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) This method by which Stewards ask the community to ratify their decision is unobjectionable.   01:10 6-Oct-2019
 * 4) Fair enough.-- 07:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * An RfC/U may only be closed when at least 3 users have commented on it.

Oppose

 * 1) too low.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) shouldnt be based on user activity. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) per Zppix.-- 08:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) LulzKiller (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

 * An RfC/U may only be closed when at least 5 users have commented on it.

Support

 * 1) Will impact every wiki.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) shouldnt be based on user activity. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) per Zppix.-- 08:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3

 * An RfC/U may only be closed when at least 7 days have passed since it was opened.

Support

 * 1) Allows time for comments.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) -- 08:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4

 * All RfC/U's must be listed on the main Requests for Comments page and added to an open requests category.

Support

 * 1)  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  If it is listed on the RfC page, it should most definitely be under a different category below the open requests category. Rubydesic (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Some Miraheze users (like yours truly!) might be willing to debate policy questions but not want to spend time on individual personality problems.  Break out ban appeals separately.   01:15 6-Oct-2019
 * 3) I would rather prefer an independent noticeboard style as other user-related requests.-- 08:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5

 * An RfC/U must have at least 75% support to pass.

Support

 * 1)  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6

 * An RfC/U must have at least 50% support to pass.

Oppose

 * 1)  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  When Stewards do what Stewards do, an effort by the community to override them should have more than a simple majority (perhaps not 75%).   01:16 6-Oct-2019

Proposal 7

 * When an RfC/U satisfies the minimum support rate given on other proposals, a steward who is not involved with the case (during the whole processes of warning, locking, and RfC/U) has a discretion to decide whether the RfC/U should pass.

Support

 * 1) While there should be a minimum support rate, support rate should not be treated as the absolute criteria, as it could be manipulated.-- 08:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * An RfC/U outcome can be appealed to the Code of Conduct Commission under the Code of Conduct policy.

Support

 * 1) Makes sense, final step.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  There is a direct object missing!  "Appealed to" whom?!   01:18 6-Oct-2019
 * Fixed. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  08:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

 * The result of an RfC/U is final and may only be appealed to the community again after 6 months.

Support

 * 1) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Am not wedded to the "6 months" figure, but disagree with RhinosF1 that we know the outcome of a new test would be the same; to argue this assumes that people never grow and improve.   01:19 6-Oct-2019

Oppose

 * 1) Community would be likely to show the same result so should be sent to someone else for review.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * An RfC/U result should be immediately enforced by the closing Steward.

Support

 * 1) only if proposal 13 passes.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) See my comment opposing Proposal 13.   01:24 6-Oct-2019
 * 4) -- 08:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

 * Note that I have fixed the proposal numbers. "Proposal 13" mentioned above is now proposal 2 (the following proposal) in this section.-- 08:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

 * When a result will lead to an account being locked, the user is given 7 days to comply with the result and request a new username or it will be locked.

Support

 * 1) no need for haste.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) The agreed-on usernames policy has a lot of bend in it to try to get the user to pick an acceptable name.  If appealed to the community and if the community ratifies the Stewards' decision, another waiting period is navel-gazing.  Let the blade fall!   01:23 6-Oct-2019
 * 2) Per Spike.-- 08:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Overall Comments

 * What is a "RfCU"? The two jargon-loaded sentences at the very top of the page do not give sufficient information as to what is being asked or debated. Please explain this RFC as if I have zero understanding of what is at issue here. --Robkelk (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This RfC involves appealing a finding that a chosen username is unacceptable (violates the Miraheze policy recently decided on).  01:27 6-Oct-2019
 * I wonder if we want appealing the Stewards' decision on a username to follow rules consistent with appealing other decisions of the Stewards.  01:27 6-Oct-2019
 * While having a page regarding username is acceptable, I wonder if it should be a subpage of RfC. Why can't we have it as an independent noticeboard style (like requests for permissions or community noticeboard)?-- 07:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It could be if wanted. I chose that because it's in a similar style to that used in English Wikipedia. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  07:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)