Requests for comment/Policy/sco

This page is a translated version of the page Requests for comment/Policy and the translation is 6% complete.

The following page is a translation of global policy into Scots language.
Please note that in the event of any differences in meaning or interpretation between the original English version of this document and a translation, the original English version takes precedence.
This page has been developed and approved by the community and its compliance is mandatory for all projects. It must not be modified without prior community approval.

This is the policy concerning Requests for comment (RFC) which are held on Meta-Wiki about either global issues or issues on other projects. They are processes by which broader input from the global community can be requested. This is typically required for policy changes that are broad in scope. It may also be useful to gain wider input regarding conflicts or unresolved issues on other Wikimedia projects with the hopes of obtaining resolution. — This policy has been decided in an RFC in 2020.

Initiating an RFC

At the time of starting the RFC, the proposer must:

have a Wikimedia account; and
be registered for more than three months before making the request; and
have at least 250 edits globally (on all Wikimedia wikis).

If the RFC concerns one party or a few parties, the initiator of the RFC must notify them on their talk page, either on the wiki in question or on Meta.

If the RFC concerns the conduct of several users on the same wiki, or the conduct of an entire community of a Wikimedia wiki, the initiator of the RFC must post a neutrally-worded notice linking to the RFC on a prominent page on that wiki, such as the village pump (links). If the initiator is unable to do so because they are blocked on that wiki, they must post a notice on the stewards' noticeboard requesting assistance.

Global ban requests have their own requirements; see global bans.

Handling an RFC

Meta administrators and stewards can either collapse or move to the talk page discussion(s) that are unproductive (i.e. unconstructive, uncollaborative, ad hominem/personal attacks, unsubstantiated accusations, off-topic).

Meta administrators and stewards can ban a user from contributing to a RFC for repeated unproductive behavior, enforceable by blocking if necessary. Appeals can be made at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat and determined by a consensus of Meta administrators/stewards.

Closure of RFCs

Only Meta administrators and stewards can close RFCs. Only stewards can close any RFC requiring steward action or changing global policy. An RFC may be withdrawn by its creator, if there are no other users proposing or supporting the proposal.

When an RFC concerns a project, and the collective community and/or collective admins of that project are credibly and seriously called into question, consensus should be evaluated primarily based on the evidence and external review by the uninvolved global community. Editors active at the subject wiki may participate and present evidence and arguments as usual.

RFCs are not immune to Meta-Wiki's deletion policy. Meta administrators may close and/or delete RFCs which fall under the various deletion criteria.

Requests for comment that are inactive for more than 2 years can be marked as closed due to inactivity. (See Requests for comment/Closure of old RFCs).