Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

RfCs in userspace

Relevant discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. Question was posed by User:Casliber: "...have we ever discussed how long is a reasonable amount of time to develop and/or leave a made-up-and-loaded RfC in one's userspace before it should be by rights deleted as an attack page? (i.e. "put-up-or-shut-up" rule?)" thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the category of "mindlessness is evil": Hard-and-fast rules seem inappropriate. A week might be more than sufficient in some cases, and inadequate in others.

Consider the case of a dispute with a person who is only intermittently active. It wouldn't be either kind or effective to start a major dispute resolution process about a person who is expected to be off-wiki (e.g., due to real-world travel) for the foreseeable future. Do you want to delete all the evidence you've collected after a week, or a month -- and then re-create it when s/he reappears tomorrow?

Additionally, is a well-written and properly documented RfC/U page really an 'attack page' in your mind? Because if it is, then we need to end RfC/U entirely: Moving the page name from the User: namespace to the Wikipedia: namespace does not change the page's content, and WP:ATTACK applies equally to all namespaces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

To have an effective discussion

In light of the recent BLP RFCs, I'm thinking of adding a section on "To have an effective discussion" -- such as, don't list viewpoints by user, get at the root of the question ... Maurreen (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There are various advice-oriented essays; have you looked at them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, do you have any examples? Maurreen (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment of TerryE 17:37, 25 February 2010 moved to separate section below -- TerryE (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe in streamlining. "How to have an effective discussion" doesn't necessarily need to go on this page, but it's a decent place to start discussing how to hold discussions. :) I would like to point out that I'm not talking about disputes per se, or civility. What I have in mind is more about issues like how to manage a large volume of input. Maurreen (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment of WhatamIdoing of 18:40, 25 February 2010 and Terry of 21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC) moved to separate section below -- TerryE (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we're each talking about something different. I'll move on. Maurreen (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Terry, thanks for your note, and for separating the discussion. About managing a large volume of input, a primary example would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. I've read that 400 people commented in Phase 1. Maurreen (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Two points in response (I realise that you understand this first; so I include this comment for other readers).

• First, what your Q emphasises to me is that the current RfC page only currently talks about the high-volume / low editor-response RfCs: those on talk pages and user pages. It is silent of the various Wikipedia centralized discussions such as your BLP RfC and the recent Community de-adminship RfC which are tagged with {{cent}} template. These are handled quite separately (which is confusing as most are called "a Request for Comments" or the like) and listed on the Wikipedia:Dashboard.
• So what you are asking for is guidance on how to managing the large volume of input in response to a community discussion. Gosh, that's poison chalice and a specialist discussion is its own right. I am not sure that here is the right place to ask for it, but I don't know my way around the Wikipedia project hierarchies well enough to assist. (I once did a week's course on "facilitation" which address some of these issues for seeking consensus from a face-to-face group, but consensus from an online community is a whole different ballgame.) Is there a specialist project that covers polling and research? Could they help? -- TerryE (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a few ideas. I'll try to cobble something together to get it started. Maurreen (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A suggested restructuring of the RfC page structure

My general comment about this covering page is that it is already too complicated and mixes too many themes. Adding more sections will detract rather than add to the quality of this page. We already cover mixed themes (how to avoid a dispute, how to frame a dispute, the mechanics of how to create the rfctag in the page), and IMHO that is a mistake. The average user will not read all this and start to skim. We would be far better off using a small hierarchy of pages:

• The general overview which includes the key points from "before requesting comment", "suggestions for responding" topic area listing, and links to the following
• A more detailed discussion of the general content related process: how to avoid it; steps that you need to take before you proceed to RfC; how to frame a good RfC; things to avoid; some links to the essays and examples that W raised. (They are no good to the general RcF entrant if the links to them don't exist in the appropriate place.)
• Request comment on users. This is sufficiently different in nature, causal mechanisms and process to be separated out entirely from the general RfCs and placed into its own page targeted at someone either raising or defending himself or herself against such an RfC.
• The mechanics of how to raise the RfC itself. This is all about the rcftag how to use it, how the bot replicates the content into the RfC page, how it deletes it and perhaps some key FAQ points on things that can go wrong.

Anyway that's my "two pennies worth" from a reasonably fresh pair of eyes, and I have had a little experience of this sort of process design through my work as an (IT) enterprise architect. -- TerryE (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You might look at the box at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct for several pages related to what you want. Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution might also interest you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, you are looking at this from the eyes of an expert who understands thee processes inside out. Whilst I am looking at the from the eyes of a middling experienced editor who is coming to these pages fresh (but who also happens to have some experience in design). I missed this link because the page isn't self consistent. Yes, RfC intro gives some overview and splits out into two sub-sections below.

• The first (which is what most editors will use) documents the process and the call-out table lists the article categories; the links take the user to the bot generated pages which are devoid of instructions.
• The second also documents the user process and gives a lot of detail on the User conduct process. It also includes a call-out table which lists the user categories with apparently similar structure and heading, but this time the links take the user to a page which document the processes.

Most users coming to the second will already be used to the first, and assume the same structure and therefore miss this. (As I did).

So I would suggest some basic rules:

• Don't split logically integral content over two pages. If you have a user conduct page then put all of the notes relating to user conduct processes on that page, etc. Don't split content. Provide a high level summary yes, but don't include a subset of details in the master page.
• Don't use similarly laid-out tables in adjacent sections which have semantically different content.

I've done a quick sandpit of what I am suggesting at User:TerryE/Requests for comment. Note that this only adds one page to this hierarchy. It's main purpose is to fork you off into the specific page which has all of the detailed content. I thought about the table in the second section, but quite honestly it add little value as anyone who wants to watch or submit such an RFC will go the page first anyway. -- TerryE (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the table." Maurreen (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The table box entitled User-related issues in Request comment on users. The (watch) and (add entry) entry links just take you to the same page. -- TerryE (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The six links in that box each took me somewhere different.

This seems circular, but it might be worthwhile to try the Village Pump for more input on your proposal. Maurreen (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Naaah. The people who are interested are watching this page. I am a newbie here in this group. I believe that consensus is the best way, so I would prefer to do it here, and if they don't find merit in the proposal -- this means that I haven't presented a clear enough or compelling enough argument. IMHO, escalation to another forum usually proves divisive and counter productive. It should only be done for strong reasons, and this isn't one. :-) -- TerryE (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"One view per editor"

I could have sworn that I had read something somewhere advising that each editor should typically submit only a single view - endorsing other views is fine - but not to attempt to give their opinions undue weight by submitting multiple views. Did I imagine this? –xeno^talk 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Single views are indeed normal practice, but limiting editors to a single view hasn't been 'required' for at least a long time (if ever). There are circumstances in which two separate views might be reasonable, e.g., "The parts of my view that I think everyone will endorse" and "The parts of my view that I doubt anyone will endorse" -- or "Yesterday's view" and "Today's view, now that I've really looked into this."

The overall goal is to resolve the dispute. If posting two views moves the dispute closer to resolution, then it is a Good Thing and should be embraced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In any discussion, if an editor attempts to dominate the discussion either through Walls O' Text or posting countless messages, that person risks being sanctioned; I see people who do that receive topic bans at the very least. Like WhatamIdoing, I think that multiple views should be allowed if they help the RfC. If they overdo it, they should be treated as they would be in any other discussion; given a gentle warning, then a stern talking-to, and eventually face sanctions if they persist. -- Atama頭 17:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I found the single view instruction. It says, "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse" -- at the top of the RfC/User template, where it's been present (but apparently ignored) for years.

This type of instruction probably belongs on another page, e.g., here, and it should definitely be modified to reflect reality (perhaps by the addition of the word "normally"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What should be done?

There are no active users listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics and there seems to be nobody monitoring the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies. Should that page have a warning that RfCs posted there may not actually get any attention, and should be pursued elsewhere? Should that page be temporarily closed?

Additionally, I am reiterating my request that there be more transparency and more a obvious, user-friendly indicator (links) of where else to take an issue if the place you're supposed/recommended to take it is open with nobody home. Abrazame (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the main issues here is that we have no way of tagging independent editors who are responding to the RfC as opposite to comments by editors involved in the issue which gave rise to the RfC. One way that I can think of would be to create an additional {{rcf-indresp|~~~}} tag and invite the independent editors to prefix this to their response. The rfcbot could then to tweaked to count the rfc-indresps following an rfctag, and this would allow a roll-up of response volumes and an escallation process for RfCs that have less than (say) 3 responses. Anyway just a lateral thought on this. -- TerryE (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently, more than 150 editors have the Econ RfC page on their watchlists. That number doesn't include those who have it bookmarked on their own computers (which is what I do with the Science RfC page). During the month of February, the page was viewed 1,151 separate times. These are not stats that favor closing the page as unused.

Furthermore, responses at other RfCs on the page indicate that editors are reading the requests and responding to some of them. If none of those editors choose to respond to your question, then there really is nothing that we can do about that.

Please consider the implications of WP:Wikipedia is a volunteer service: You are able to request comments, but you are not guaranteed comments from volunteer editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The econ project responded (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Who is currently active at WikiProject Economics). I agree that this is very unfortunate, and lack of comments should be considered a type of backlog/dysfunction. If an editor can look for help but not find it anywhere, this essentially means that the most aggressive editor wins. Have you tried other venues such as WP:RS/N and WP:THIRD? Were you aware of these other venues - should we note that they are other options in the lead? II | (t - c) 08:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean by listing these options at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Before_requesting_comment... where suggested alternatives have been listed for as long as I can remember?

It might be more pointful to require the editors to read the directions, but that proposal, I think, is doomed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Abrazame, one thing you might consider is asking a narrower question, instead of "Is this article totalled?" Maurreen (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Another option is that people have been using WP:VP informally as RFC. Maurreen (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just gone through and commented on a number of these articles, but to A's underlying assertion that the list is moribund, I think what we really need here is some quantitative data, so we can turn this into a objective assessment rather than a subjective one. I have some ideas on this. Let me bounce them off Harej first and then I'll post back here. -- TerryE (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC overuse?

I wonder whether issue-oriented RFCs are being overused. It seems like sometimes they are used on questions that could and should be settled among the editors already involved. Maurreen (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a solvable problem: If an editor doesn't have enough judgment to avoid posting a needless RfC, then the editor doesn't have enough judgment to determine whether it's needless.

Additionally, the fact that average Wikipedia editors could normally settle something doesn't mean that the specific editors are able to agree on anything at all. Sometimes the RfC indicates a dysfunctional editing environment rather than the question that is nominally being asked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I was mainly wondering if anyone else had the same observation. Maurreen (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely, use of the RfC is one step in the resolution process. For example, if the relationship between one or more editors and the rest of the editors on a controversial page has broken down to the point that some are no longer following WP:ETIQ, then discussion is clearly not working. WP:3O is only applicable for 1-1 disputes. Looking across the current RfCs, questions to the projects rarely seem to help. Experienced editors can completely frustrate the healthy functioning of page development whilst avoiding triggering WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, etc.. So what is the next step in such cases? It certainly isn't WP:RFAR. I would have thought WP:RFC is the proportionate next step in such circumstances. If there is a material issue of abuse of RfCs here, then wouldn't some objective and evidence based analysis be worthwhile? -- TerryE (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a really question of 'abuse', although that happens (see the four Newman Luke-related RfC/U pages for an example). There are (and have always been) some RfCs for which no dispute exists. These are, generally speaking, unnecessary and therefore 'overuse' of the process. The one listed by Abrazame is a good example: He (or she) could have chosen to boldly improve the page without advance discussion. There was no dispute at that neglected article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hummm, OK fair point. Why not consider a mod to the RfC practice so that if a reviewing edit feels that the RfC is wrongly classified then he or she can insert recommendation for a WP:30 request or whatever between the {{rfctag}} and the RfC text. It would be easy to create a template for this. This will (i) flag up to other editors that it is a waste of time coming to this RfC and (ii) point the originating editor to the correct process to use. -- TerryE (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Because knowing what the filing editor really hopes to accomplish requires an advanced level of mind-reading skills.

There's no rule that prevents an editor from responding to an RfC with "Hey, you could just be bold!" or (if there are exactly two editors involved, which doesn't apply to Abrazame's RfC) "Have you considered removing the RfC and listing the question at WP:3O?" -- but if we institutionalize a process for a unilateral/undiscussed 'downgrade', then we'll have well-intentioned editors involved in avoidable disputes.

Put another way: There's no good reason for the responding editor not to kindly suggest a simpler and faster process, rather than imposing it forcibly, especially if the responding editor is not omniscient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask for minimum requirements check of a RfC here?

Hello, can someone give it a look to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Erebedhel it has been filed since January but haven't been listed properly and other than the filling party the only activity was a user who said that it will go nowhere besides on ANI it was been requested that these RfC stop [1], and it has been inactive for nearly 50 days now.

Secondly it doesn't meet with the Minimum requirements review the links in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Erebedhel#Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, first of all there is no evidence of the second user who signed Unknown Lupus trying to solve the dispute, besides of the 4 links 2 of them are direct links to a mediation cabal and a formal mediation both product of a previous Rfc on his conduct Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MarshalN20 and where my initiative, and the mediation cabal failed for this the other link is a fight where he insulted me several times, and the other link where he claims he is asking me to not insult him, it's clearly cooked because in the above comment I wasn't insulting him I was requesting that this person stop insulting me.

In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Erebedhel#Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute happens the same, even he puts as evidence when I said thank you to another editor.

I believe this RfC should be deleted as uncertified besides it won't go anywhere else if the previous one I started is already on formal mediation. Thank you Erebedhel - Talk 21:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask for deletion at WP:AN. Maurreen (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Minimum Requirements check for another RfC

Good day, could the minimum requirements be checked for the following RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MarshalN20. According to the Minimum requirements standards of the RfC community, it lacks the evidence of a second user attempting to resolve the issue. The user in question is User:RBCM (Who has neither a user page or talk page), who signed the RfC but failed to provide any "evidence showing that he tried and failed to resolve the same dispute." The issue in question was my alleged conduct problem in the Diablada article.

The RfC in question has been open for nearly 6 months, and so there has been plenty of time given for RBCM to provide evidence (All of the "evidence" has been provided by Erebedhel). Therefore, the RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MarshalN20 should be deleted as it is uncertified appropiately (i.e., it fails the minimum requirements). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask for deletion at WP:AN. Maurreen (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that as well. Thank you Maurreen.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversial command decisions, World War II

I request Admin comment on what happened there. The article was until recently named "Western Betrayal" and it was about the feeling in central European countries that there were abandoned by France and United Kindgom in face of the Nazi German expansion. Whether and to what degree such a feeling is justified is of course debatable but obviously the topic was more than relevant enough to have an article on wikipedia. And the article in it's relatively stable form existed for a couple years. Here is the state of the article on on 22 February 2010. [2] Lately user user:Communicat appeared on the article and started a huge rewriting, removed the most important parts of the article which included literally every single word about Poland from the article. I honesty couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that. Similarly the sections about Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Yugoslavia etc have all been wiped out. A little later the article was renamed to its current name Controversial command decisions, World War II which I am not sure what exactly is supposed to mean but most certainly doesn't have much to do with the initial topic of the article. Worse, the article still has a section named Western betrayal which now contains a lot of text about what Stalin felt was the Western Betrayal, a new section about "The missing front" where we read about Soviet Marshall Georgy Zhukov disappointment about the lack of the second front and stuff like that etc etc. A short section about the Communist China was also added.

In my opinion the Admins take a look at the article and 1) restore the article under its proper name and 2) restore the parts about Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Yugoslavia and others which were deleted out... Unless this new method of completely destroying an article, by first removing all relevant text and then renaming it, which is de facto deletion, is now acceptable editing practice on wikipedia.  Dr. Loosmark  21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the information regarding Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Yugoslavia et al was actually moved to different articles. I personally think that this solution is better: the previous article was long (close to the maximum size under WP:EFAQ#SIZE) and a hodge-podge of different topic areas. To cover so much content in just one article will make the article too long, especially given the fact that we would also need to include the other POV for each ‘betrayal’ (e.g. in the section for Poland, that Britain declared war when German refused to withdraw from POland and then refused all peace offers that did not involve German withdrawal from Poland are just two of the many things which would need to be mentioned). Varsovian (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the "information" regarding Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Yugoslavia and others (basically what was the original article about) was not moved anywhere.  Dr. Loosmark  10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaken. Please see this diff [3]. Varsovian (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not mistaken, the diff was already reverted by sb because it completely doesn't belong into that article.  Dr. Loosmark  11:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Varsovian (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion page, in particular the sections commencing around 3 Mar 2010 and subsequently, records at length the interactions and editing rationale concerning renaming and reworking of the article Western Betrayal. Sorry if I've offended you, but the Western Betrayal article had been in a neglected state of disarray for number of years, e.g. verifications needed, key sources missing, etc. etc Communicat (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While the article had its problems I completely disagree that it was in "a neglected state of disarray". If sources were missing that could have been easily rectified by requesting them. If the article was too long it could have been shortened or rewritten. The reality of the matter is that the core of the article (which was about the concept of "Western Betrayal" in Central European countries), was literally wiped out, replaced with the "fall of Singapure", some Soviet ideas of Western Betrayal and a short paragraph about communist China. And finally the title was changed from "Western Betrayal" into "Controversial command decisions". The original topic of the article article ceased to exist without a RfD or a request for move or anything.  Dr. Loosmark  12:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just nominated the current version of the article for deletion. I didn't realise that this RfC had been started until after lodging the AfD as no notification of it had been placed on the article's talk page, but I think that the present version of the article is entirely unviable and deletion the best option. Please note that much of the Western Betrayal article's content was moved by Communicat to Central and Eastern Europe, from which it was recently removed. Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC posting tool chokes on quotation marks

The RfC posting tool seems to fail when it encounters quotation marks in the body of the text. All text starting with the first mark is removed or gets lost. SharkD  Talk  10:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed this problem. harej 02:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My RFC doesn't seem to be posting here

I submitted a RFC some time ago, but it hasn't appeared on the RFC:Biographies page yet. It was about deletion of external links to photos of living persons. Here is the talk page where the RFC template appears: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_James_Bethune Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User RfC process

The instructions for creating an RfC concerning user conduct are totally inadequate. I can't tell where to start, from a technical point of view. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I thought we'd fixed that a long time ago, but it seems that this page is remarkably unhelpful. It appears that most of what you need to know can be found through the five-box template at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. In particular, you'll want to look at the "Guidance" subpage.

It's possible that you would find this old version more helpful, although I suspect that the final instructions for listing the RfC have changed somewhat. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance carefully you will find the link to the page at the bottom of which are the boxes for actually creating an RFCU. It is intentionally not made too easy to click and leap into - an RFCU is a serious thing and you must read the guidance properly. Rd232 ^talk 23:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I found myself quite lost too. I agree with funneling people to the guidance page, but I think the sections on General User Conduct, etc., were confusing about pointing to the guidance page with links to templates being more prominent. I've modified those sections to remove the templates, and put more focus on linking to the guidance pages. I'd also recommend delinking the last part of that sentance, "creating an RFC/U", to discourage skipping the guidelines for going straight to the creation page. --InkSplotch (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I declare this process hopelessly broken. It is indecipherable, and I have no confidence that a group of people who would create such a mess would be of any use in dispute resolution. I will neither start nor participate in any RfC on user conduct. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The creators are not the primary audience for contributing to RfCs. And with the greatest respect, if you can't be arsed to read the instructions, that's your choice. If you have concrete suggestions for improving them, say so. Rd232 ^talk 08:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Content RfC process

I also have a concern about this, and I'd like to suggest we go back to allowing users to do it manually, but so that their requests are on the same page as the non-manual ones. RfCs are a very important part of the DR process, so I'd really like to see this get sorted.

I've had a problem almost every time I've posted an RfC in the last year or so. Here's an example. I was overseeing an RfC as an admin (one where there had been allegations of canvassing from among the editors, so I was posting the RfC to avoid that). I posted it manually on the request board. [4] Harej removed it. [5] I added it to the religion and philosophy board, [6] and the bot removed it. The same thing happened at the history board. Then, and I don't know how this happened, the bot added it three times to the philosophy page, but without including what the dispute was about; see this version of the page for the three versions of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. I didn't realize this had happened until much later, and these things can't be fixed easily, because the bot simply reverts.

This confusion led to complaints that the RfC wasn't valid because people hadn't been informed properly.

Also more recently, I posted an RfC via the bot, but just to make sure something got posted, I also posted manually on the Requests page. [7] Harej removed it. [8] Surely people should be allowed to post there, regardless of what the bot is doing.

I'm also worried about what happens if we need to fix the wording of an RfC. Will the bot undo us? I've asked Harej about that but he hasn't replied.

What can we do to allow people to post RfCs manually without being sent to another page that no one reads, and without having the bot undo their edits? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

'Using the bot' entails

1. Typing {{rfctag|something}} on a talk page, where "something" is taken from the list of parameters named on this page
2. Typing an explanation or question after the template
3. Signing the explanation

That's it. It really doesn't seem very difficult to me, and I know that an editor like you can manage these three simple steps.

The bot picks up everything between the tag and the date stamp and sticks it on the page. If you need to make changes (which I've done), then you just edit the original explanation to say what you want: The next time the bot looks at all the tags, it will substitute your new text. If you want to extend the RfC's listing, then you change the date stamp: The next time the bot looks at all the tags, it will substitute your new timer.

Can you tell me why, given a process that is barely more complicated than slapping a fact-tag in an article, you still need manual RfCs? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's expressed more clearly than at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Maybe you can tweak it? Perhaps with a one-sentence Summary: just put the tag, then an explanation, then sign, and the bot will do the rest; and then more details for people who want to know, particularly in case of problems. Rd232 ^talk 16:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've streamlined the instructions a bit, reducing the size of the page by about 500 bytes. It's a start. I understand the temptation of seriously paring down the documentation to making it little more than an instructional guide -- I was critical of an earlier version of the WP:RM guidelines page for being too steeped in philosophy without enough clarification of how to actually get work done. However, some of the advisory notes added to the WP:RFC instructions were done in response to some recurring issues and questions. If you can organize or rewrite the instructions so that they're clearer without sacrificing important information, I invite you to do so. Of course, there is always the RfC posting tool. harej 02:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Two questions: (1) if we need to change the wording of an RfC after the bot has posted it, how do we do that without the bot overwriting the correction? (2) can we have a return to manually posted RfCs being on the same page? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

All the bot does is relay what's on the talk page. Change the talk page, and the bot will listen. Here is SandyGeorgia updating the description of an RFC with a hat note, and the bot posts the change as part of its scheduled run. The point is that people should not have to duplicate work. (By the way, this isn't just some exercise of programming lust. Before the process was automated, the RFC lists were often added to but rarely pruned of its older entries. This made lists very cluttered and nearly useless, and as of now the process is much more efficient and organized.) harej 05:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

My concern is about examples like this, where the Catholic Church RfC ended up reported three times, but without saying what the dispute was. And the post that did describe it was reverted by the bot. I don't know how that happened. It would be nice if there could be manual overriding of the bot for occasions like that. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Outside Views

There is a contradiction in the guidelines. It states that an RfC is for outside views. Then it says anyone may post. "Anyone" includes "insiders" i.e. people who have already been active on the talk page.

I propose that we add a strong statement that the RfC is only for outsiders and not for people who have already posted their views on the talk page. I have two reasons. First, RfCs are often swamped by people active on the talk page reasserting their views; it defeats the purpose of an RfC. Second, if an RfC includes everyone it amounts to a poll. Nothing wrong with that, but why not just say "let's have a poll?"

I think there is a real value in soliciting outside views, and we should have some mechanism that does this. But with its current guidelines, RfCs often just misx up new views with ones that have already been presented over and over and, indeed, were the reason for the RfC in the first place. I think this cuts into its efficacy. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal would prevent insiders from pointing out blatant errors or misunderstandings posted by outsiders, and would prevent outsiders from asking questions to clarify matters before they form a view. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe there can be an RfC template that would address this. For example, I did not mean to say that insiders should not be prevented from responding to someone's comment; I just mean that they should not be providing the first-level comments. Those comments are being requested from outsiders. That is the whole point. Responding to those comments is a separate matter and one I have no problem with. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC for WP:RSN?

Are RfC's appropriate for use in soliciting input to an ongoing RS/N discussion? If so, since the RS/N "talk" page is not designed to deal with the subject matter of individual RS/N's but rather the noticeboard itself, how would an RfC be implemented in such a case? Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In general I would say no - that's not what a noticeboard is for. However in that discussion I do see general issues arising about how to measure internet rankings - so you could justify launching a separate, general RFC and listing on WP:Cent. The only issue would be where to host it - perhaps at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/measuring internet rankings if nowhere else springs to mind. I would say that going from a noticeboard to an RFC in this way might be construable as forum shopping (it shouldn't be, properly framed), so I would ask first in that RSN thread if people think it's a good idea. Rd232 ^talk 09:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking whether an RfC can be started at RS/N or whether editors can solicit input into an ongoing discussion by posting a message into an RfC taking place elsewhere? If the latter, I would say, in principle, that RfC's are not an appropriate venue for soliciting input into any other discussion. There might be exceptions but I'd imagine they are rare. If the former, I'd start an RfC as a subpage of WP:RFC rather than clutter up a heavily frequented page. Hope that helps (and that I understood)? --Jubilee♫clipman 18:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The former Jubilee (see my talk page). Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wanton abuse of policies, guidelines and general courtesy of editing

History of Guy Fawkes article:

(cur | prev) 19:14, 26 April 2010 Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (24,160 bytes) (→Guy Fawkes mask: this is irrelevant. If you want to write an article about a mask then please feel free to do ao) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:07, 26 April 2010 71.146.83.191 (talk) (24,820 bytes) (→Guy Fawkes mask: format of references) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:06, 26 April 2010 71.146.83.191 (talk) (24,725 bytes) (expanded text, to demonstrate culturas significance, with two references. Do you need more references?) (undo)

(cur | prev) 18:42, 26 April 2010 Morenooso (talk | contribs) (24,122 bytes) (Undid revision 358461953 by 71.146.83.191 (talk) Rv: Disagree and concur w/ previous removal 3RR potential) (undo)

(cur | prev) 18:41, 26 April 2010 71.146.83.191 (talk) (24,390 bytes) (it is not trivia: it is legacy) (undo)

(cur | prev) 18:39, 26 April 2010 Morenooso (talk | contribs) (24,122 bytes) (Undid revision 358461032 by 71.146.83.191 (talk) Rv: WP:TRIVIA addition) (undo)

(cur | prev) 18:37, 26 April 2010 71.146.83.191 (talk) (24,390 bytes) (frivolous revert of self-evident information undone) (undo)

(cur | prev) 17:09, 26 April 2010 Weakopedia (talk | contribs) (24,122 bytes) (Undid revision 358439882 by 71.146.83.191 (talk) unreferenced addition) (undo)

(cur | prev) 17:01, 26 April 2010 71.146.83.191 (talk) (24,390 bytes) (→Legacy) (undo)

The first revert by Weakopedia I can understand: it was indeed unreferences addition, although the existence of the photo in several wikipedia articles could have given some benefit of reason for the text.

The second revert by Morenooso is a matter of taste : the referred policy WP:TRIVIA specifically says it is not about deletion of content, but about rearrangement of text into a flow, rather than bullet list.

Still, I understood and accepted both criticisms, and I significantly expanded my text, with references, to show the cultural siginificance of the item in question.

I was more than baffled that my larger text was reverted with absolutely frivolous summary "irrelevant". Also I am outraged with the offensive stance of Morenooso who accused me in "revert warring" and threatened with block. I am not going to edit wikipedia any more in the forseeable future. I undestand that is not a threat to you, but you may want to do soimething with this hostile attitude to other people editing.

Why don't you just talk to these editors? One of them left a note on the article's talk page about why s/he thought this information wasn't appropriate, but you haven't responded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit policy during RfCs

Is there a general policy about how to handle disputed edits after an RfC has been posted? For example, editor A adds a new section, and then editor B deletes it. Then editor A restores it, after adding a detailed talk page discussion disputing the deletion. Then editor B again deletes it.

Next, editor A posts an RfC. Should the original edits be restored during the RfC period pending some responses? The assumption is that editors will eventually make comments which may eventually lead to some dispute resolution and/or consensus. It's nice to accept the 3RR and edit warring policy. But is it reasonable to let the one who began the dispute, by deleting material, keep their own deletions intact? Thanks for any feedback. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the late reply.

Edit warring needs to stop as soon as any editor (hereinafter "the smarter editor") figures out that there's an unproductive series of reversions going on, no matter which version that leaves in place. The metaphysical laws that control Wikipedia virtually guarantee that The Wrong Version will always be the one that is left in place during discussions.

During the RfC, it normally does not matter which version is 'on top', because the smarter editor will provide diffs or a link to his/her preferred version. Also, the point of an RfC is to get other smart editors involved, and they, too, know how to find the history page.

If the smarter editor thinks that s/he can make an case for extraordinary circumstances (copyvio concerns, libel, previously stable policy page), then the thing to do is to explain on the talk page (perhaps as part of the RfC) or perhaps at ANI (we trust the smarter editor to use his best judgment to identify the most appropriate forum) why you think a reversion is important, and announcing that you intend to let other editors make that choice, because edit warring is evil.

Good luck to you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

new article

Hi, I've been working on Peter Lawlor I'd appreciate any feedback as I am new, I will work on the Minister section more but seeking feedback/assistance on what I've done so far. Thanks, Molendinarmania (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

bot bug

The bot gathers the RFC up to the signature. This can cause a problem if, for instance, there is a pair of html symbols that both don't precede the signature.

For example, the excess strikeouts occurred here because someone put a <s> in text before their signature and a </s> after their signature here.

In another example, a strange irrelevant message was included in the first RFC here because someone put a <!-- before an editor's signature and a --> after the signature here.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a bug; the bot is behaving as documented:

The bot will place all of the text before the signature line (which can be ~~~~ (sign with your name) or ~~~~~ (only the date)) onto the RfC page. If the description is more than a couple of sentences long, you might choose to provide a very brief summary, sign it (so the bot will list only that summary), and then continue with longer comments afterwards (which you should also sign with your name, although they will not be placed on the centralized RfC pages).

You can repair these by moving the timestamp to a suitable location. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You're correct that "bug" wasn't the right word. Nevertheless, the problems indicated by my examples apparently happen and I don't think many people know not to cause them or how to correct them when they do happen. Perhaps this could be avoided by using instead of the signature, a template like {{endRFC}} ? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would help. People who can't read and follow the existing directions will not be able to read and follow directions for a two-template system, either. But you reminded me that it's been a while since I trawled through the RfC pages to do some clean up; thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.

Re "People who can't read and follow the existing directions will not be able to read and follow directions for a two-template system, " -

The direction is, "Be sure to sign the statement with ~~~~ ." The problems shown by the above examples have subtle causes and an editor may not be aware of them from this instruction, or even from the example that follows it. Also, note that the editors who caused the above problems weren't necessarily the ones who first submitted the RFC, so they may not be aware of the instructions. An experienced editor at WT:NOR made the mistake in the above second example. One could argue that the mistake could be made with the template there anyhow, but I think the number of such incidents would be reduced.

If there was a template, the direction would still be simple, "Be sure to sign the statement with ~~~~ and put {{endRFC}} after the signature."

But if you don't like it, that's OK. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It may not have been clear, but the block quotation in my first response is copied directly from the instructions at WP:RFC#Example_use_of_Rfctag (immediately below the "box"). I think that people just aren't reading all of the directions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong namespace

The last item at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography is to List of War Crimes. Someone put the tag on the title case'd redirect (main namespace). I've cleared it, but it might be worth making the bot be sensitive to namespaces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That last part has been on the list for a really long time. I am not sure why it's on the list at all. harej 23:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

BOT not working

I've posted an RFC at talk:Karl Rove towards the bottom and its not posting it properly to the RFC Bio page. Not sure why its not working. Can somebody fix this for me.Chhe (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

How long

How long does the WP:RFC/U process normally take? Gnevin (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Until the dispute is resolved, the involved editors get bored, the dispute is referred on to another forum, and/or an independent editor decides that the conversation is either doomed or abandoned. Unlike the content RfCs (for which the community has decided that after 30 days, probably nobody's paying attention anyway, and therefore the community has the bot defaultly de-list the RfC after 30 days), there is no default timer.

We had a couple of editors who did most of closures last year; I have the impression that they are less active now, and thus that pages are staying open longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

OK ,thanks. I guess I just wait Gnevin (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Delisted content RfC

Is there some method of achieving resolution of content RfC which were delisted by the bot but were not evaluated and closed by a neutral editor (e.g. Talk:Donkey punch#File:Donkey punch.jpg)? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Rainforests

Discussion moved

 – to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Rain_forests –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What are the 3 main tropical rainforests ??? if anyone knows , please tell me !!! it is urgent !!! i think one is the Amazon rainforest... please tell me if i am wrong !!! thnx !!! lol (-; 81.147.6.161 (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

plz cud sum1 tell me what the three main tropical rainforests are ??? i think one is the amazon rainforest,plz tell me if i am wrong !!! lol xoxo thnx !!! 81.147.6.161 (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Question on Request for Comment

Hi, I opened a Request for Comment under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law in the hopes of obtaining wider input from the Wikipedia community for a discussion at Talk:Debate on the monarchy in Canada#Quotation marks around "British monarchy"?, but so far only the usual editors of that page, pretty well those already embroiled in the current argument, have commented, and there has been no outside input. Can I append a second category to the RfC tag at this point in order to try to invite more community input? 65.92.157.178 (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You can add another category, as long as it is relevant. The second category is appended after the first (e.g. {{rfctag|pol|the second category}}). harej 04:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Harej. 65.94.17.254 (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancestral File Number on biographies

Hello, I am an amateur genealogist, and I was thinking that it might be a good idea to update the template for articles to include each individual's ancestral file number from the LDS on the right-hand side. The AFN is basically an ID number that one can use to look-up a person in the world's largest genealogy database, which is maintained by, but not necessarily associated with the LDS (I myself am not Mormon, but use their information all the time).

Love to hear some of your feedback.

Thomasshehan (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You might consider posting this suggestion to one of the Village Pump discussion pages, or on the talk page of a template that you would like to change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Being informed about draft RfC's on User Conduct

I have had a discussion with Ncmvocalist on my talk page regarding the appropriate procedures for preparing a Requests for comment regarding User conduct. Summarising the points he made, he suggests that:

1. Potential participants do not need to be informed of the existence of a draft RfC's on User Conduct;
2. Only after RfC has been listed is there a need for the participants to be notified;
3. Only after the RfC has been submitted can editors comment.

In fairness to Ncmvocalist, the current guidelines on RFC's are a bit vague, so I am not finding fault with his opinion. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance says that "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved."

I would suggest that this statement is flawed in the sense that the origin of a particular disupute or incident may actually be a discussion on a user talk page, and that where such dispute ends and a discussion about a proposed/draft RFC starts is not defined. As I read it, any editor could have a falling out with a correspondent, only to be later informed that "a discussion has already taken place, and this failed to resolve the dispute".

In my view, this state of affairs is almost Kafkaesque. Having read the The Trial, I feel participants to an RFC are almost in the same position as the lead character who is the subject of a legal action, the details and process of which have been deliberately withheld from him so that he is put in the postition whereby he is unable to respond or resolve the action before it goes to trial.

It seems to me that all the potential participants in an RFC should be kept in the loop regarding the existence of a draft RFC (whether this is being prepared on or off Wiki), at the very least as a matter of courtesy. As a matter of due process, I think all the participants should be given notice of the draft, so that a talk page discussion can be conducted before the RFC is listed, ideally with a view to resolving the dispute before it is listed.

In my experience (RFC/GC & RFC/GC2), it is difficult to respond to an RFC in the first instance, because of the element of "suprise" and bombardment effect achieved by multiple editors drafting an RFC in advance of the participants knowing about it.

In the name of fair play, I think the guidelines should be amended so that there is advance notification that an RFC is about to be drafted, as well as detials of its location, as well as its content if drafted off-Wiki. I think there needs to be greater transparency for all the participants, not just a few. Wikipedia administrative processes should be more open to resolving disuputes, rather than being used as platform for propagating them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This will simply achieve the opposite of the aim of this exercise - doing things on-wiki. Parties will draft their RfC/s via email in order to avoid being subjected to the sort of red tape that is being proposed by Gavin.collins. Then when the RfC/U is posted on-wiki, nothing has changed and respondants are going to be worse off. Is that really worth it? I don't think so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there is and should be no need for notification that an RFC/U is being drafted -- only that it is live. An RFC is a Request for Comments, not a "trial" -- and the point is to get comments from other users, not to defend oneself. And you suggestion that RFC/U subjects should be informed about off-wiki drafting is no over-the-top it's unbelievable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that drafts need to be either announced or shared, and I believe that such a requirement is likely to make some disputes worse. For example, some editors start writing an RFC/U, and then decide that it's really not worth the hassle, and end the dispute (e.g., by discovering that there are three million other articles they could be working on). If we throw "argue about whether, when and how the RFC/U should be presented" to the mix, we've made the dispute worse, not better. It should not be a surprise to anyone that s/he is involved in a dispute. When disputes exist, it's your job to resolve them -- regardless of whether the other disputants are thinking about using an RFC/U to reach that resolution. You do not need to know that the other disputants are drafting an RFC/U to do your bit to resolve the dispute. You should resolve all of your disputes ASAP anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

CANVASSing for frontloading an RFC/U

Under what circumstances, if any, is CANVASSing permitted in order to make sure enough people comment on one specific side of an RFC/U? Is solicitation for participants ever proper? Would an RFC/U where 14 or more editors are CANVASSed on the basis of a particular position against the editor being discussed be a problem? I am not talking about getting the "second person" to sign on - but essentially mass solicitation here. If such is improper, ought that be noted on the project page in specific terms? Collect (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the most proper form of solicitation is by posting on the list of requests for comment, which is expected and cannot possibly be taken the wrong way. harej 18:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How would you regard an RFC/U which had extensive canvassing in order to frontload the image of the person being commented on? Collect (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Where actual canvassing occurs in an RfC/U, this is the equivalent of dispute resolution being abused - it should be reported to an admin noticeboard so that either individual admins, the community, or both, can enforce policy and impose appropriate remedies in response to the problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Update to RfC automatically updated ?

Hi

There appears to be a glitch in the way I have made the RfC using the AutoRfC form. Anything after the page title does not display and so I have had to add the question into the statement at the top of the section Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Will the bot auto update everything in my original statement to include the final sentence (the question starting "Is the term") or will I have to do it manually ?

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The bot will make the update automatically. harej 23:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not working (?)

I'm not sure my RFC/U is working. See comment on my Talk page here [9]. I couldn't fiure out how to respond to or even verify the concern. Noloop (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarity: "When discussion has ended"

Is the phrase "When discussion has ended" on the RfC tag open to more than one interpretation? I take it to mean when the discussion has ended - that is when there is no more discussion taking place. Though I can see the possibility that it could be read differently. SilkTork *^YES! 01:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just a tag; it doesn't define the policy or procedure - that's the function of this page - specifically the 'Ending RfCs' section. Dlabtot (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

True, and the section says that an uninvolved editor should close the page after consensus has been reached. Obviously, "consensus" is up to debate by other users, as it always is, though I think this "no more discussion" thing should probably be laid out more clearly. I assume you mean after an amount of time has passed with no more discussion taking place, correct? And you are trying to determine how long that amount of time should, on average, be? Personally, I would say two days, that is, 48 hours without any new discussion taking place in the RfC (after a good amount of discussion has already taken place, you don't want to close it with little to no discussion) should be enough time for an uninvolved editor to consider closing it. Silverseren^C 01:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that all RfCs have active discussions, but that is not so. Many garner very few comments even over the course of a whole month. Dlabtot (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact it only took me a few minutes to find one several weeks old that received no responses at all: [10]. Should it therefore be closed? The idea makes no sense considering the purpose of RfCs it to engender discussion, not limit it. Dlabtot (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"the section says that an uninvolved editor should close the page after consensus has been reached" - that only refers to user RfCs. Dlabtot (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I read it as RfCs running for at least 30 days, possibly shorter if there is a spectacular consensus. [redacted]While I personally don't have an objection to closing the FOX one at this point, and I find the closing comment quite reasonable, I would find it unfortunate if we edge towards a situation where RfCs can be closed prematurely as unhelpfully a relative term as that may be. I would suggest that we allow for wording to the effect of: An RfC should run for no less than 15 days and may be considered for closing after at least 48 hours of inactivity. (I would prefer a higher number than 15, but..) Unomi (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion that seemed to concentrate on a particular tree rather than the forest

Opening an RFC does not guarantee a defacto right to keep the RfC open for 30 days. This is particularly true when the RfC in question was opened to make a WP:Point. The RfC that was closed has a few interesting characteristics. There are about 57 people who have chimed in. 10 of them have supported the RfC, the others have come down on the other side of the issue. That's almost a 5:1 ratio. 5 of the 10 who have supported the notion in the RfC came in the first 12 hours, and nobody has supported the RfC in 10 days. Everybody who has chimed in for the first time since about 5am on the 7th have been uniform in their stance---in opposition to the motion of the RfC. Currently, the RfC has nearly 200KB of discussion and is not going anywhere. This was a good close and long over due as the RfC was going to fail to begin with.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)}} Please refrain from further personal attacks and insults. Dlabtot (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I'll remove the comment about you... but that doesn't change the facts---Getting wrapped up over this close is wikilawyering---which is exactly why wp:IAR exists. Keeping this RfC is an utter waste of time as this RfC was biased to begin with. Admins routinely weigh consensus and determine that further discussion is going nowhere. This RfC was going nowhere from the start.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC) First of all, RfCs outcomes are not decided by numerical !votes, they should be decided on the merits of the arguments. Second, those that consider them a waste of time should perhaps consider spending their time elsewhere? Unomi (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC) And the consensus is clear---as is demonstrated by the fact that every new voice for the past 9+ days supports keeping FNC as a reliable source. As for spending the time elsewhere... er, this is a pointy RfC whose implications are too important to ignore.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Absent from this discussion is any affirmative reason why RfCs should be closed early if no one has commented on the RfC in a certain period of time. So I ask: Why? What positive benefit derives from closing RfCs early when they have not had any recent comments? Dlabtot (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Because the RfC is partisan piece attempting to make a political point, thus a disruption to wikipedia as there is zero chance that it will effect any change. Added to the fact that no new voices have been added in the past 9 days supporting the premise of the RfC and that discussion is simply going to be circular as it has been for the past few days? There is no need to keep this RfC open.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Do you have any comment to make about RfCs in general? You seem to be discussing one particular RfC. Perhaps you should look at some of the other RfCs that are active right now and see how this change in policy would apply to them. Dlabtot (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC) That's just the point that you don't seem to understand. First, Wikipedia:Requests for comment is not a policy. Second, this would not be a change in policy. Third, WP:IAR is policy. So, even if WP:RfC were policy, IAR could be applied. WP:IAR exists primarily to enable people to do what is right when others try to wikilawyer the issue.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC) So you don't have anything to say about the topic at hand? Policy, guideline, process - whatever you want to call it, do you have any comment as to how this change would apply to RfCs in general? Please skip the parts where you opine what I do or don't understand or any other comments that are about me and not the topic at hand. Dlabtot (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Good Grief. It is pretty straight forward. But in simple English, WP:IAR is already a policy. Therefore, this does not change a thing.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)This is a good close. Dlabtot is wikilawyering. I'm done with this discussion.

While I disagree that the above is off topic, I'm not going fight over it, but I will highlight the key points: When an RfC is disruptive (200KB on a subject that has 0% of passing), consensus is clear, and no new voices have chimed in over 10 days to support the RfC, and only 2 or 3 voices are pushing for it, then it is perfectly acceptable to close an RfC. Keeping such an RfC open serves no meaningful purpose other than to beat a dead horse. And this is fully supported by general practice throughout wikipedia, and to avoid wikilawyering, this would be a prime time to invooke WP:IAR.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Absent from this discussion is any affirmative reason why RfCs should be closed early if no one has commented on the RfC in a certain period of time. So I ask: Why? What positive benefit derives from closing RfCs early when they have not had any recent comments? Dlabtot (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If the dispute is resolved, the RFC should be closed. This is dispute resolution, ¿no? Once the dispute is resolved, you're done. Leaving open a discussion about how to really-really-really do what you've already done is silly, and further comments might even result in restarting the dispute. If you can resolve a significant dispute with zero outside comments or in just a couple of days -- then Congratulations! That's success, and you're done!

If the dispute is unresolved, then the RFC should normally be left open until editors decide that the RFC tag is not helping them resolve the dispute. We have the bot pull the RFC tags after 30 days because most people forget to turn off the RFC after the dispute has been resolved, not because 30 days is a magic amount of time that leads to best resolutions. If the RFC process is tending to resolve the dispute and more time is wanted, then it can be extended. Editors at a given page are also perfectly free to continue discussions even when the RFC is no longer listed at the centralized advertising points. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, what would you say about an RfC where there is a clear consensus, but 2 or 3 editors continue to fight a lost cause and the debate is going nowhere. Would you say it is within the perview of an admin to go ahead and close it?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that closing such an RFC is within the purview of any uninvolved admin.

Speaking only of the general case (YMMV, etc), the kind of situation you describe does not sound like a completely successful resolution of the dispute. Because of this, I would be wary of appearing to formally close the debate "early" (early compared to the 30-day time span that some editors feel entitled to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Should the mechanisms for ending RfCs be amended or expanded and if so, how?

Should the mechanisms for ending RfCs be amended or expanded and if so, how? Dlabtot (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

---

• Comment This question was prompted by a 'Motion to Close' a Request for Comments. [11] A similar 'Motion to Close' can be seen here: [12]
  I just don't agree with the idea that we should stop people from commenting on a Request for Comments based on a vote of the editors who have already commented. It seems to go against the whole point of an RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion: It should be made more clear that RfCs are expected to run for 15-30 days and should be closed by an uninvolved editor who summarizes the arguments made. < br /> Yes, RfCs are meant exactly to invite wider comment from uninvolved editors - "Motion to close" style efforts would allow an acute local consensus to terminate discussion before a wider audience has been heard. It also seems that "Motion to close" is being used in lieu of actual discussion on the subject matter, by those who disagree with its premise. Unomi (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Actually, i've decided I don't care about this RfC, we all know that it is wp:POINT, nobody is advocating any changes, Dlabtot is just doing this because numerous people have called for the closure of another WP:POINTy RfC. Not worth the effort.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm reminded during this episode of the "motion to close" the development of the draft of what eventually became the proposal for community recall of administrators, which was eventually rejected, in the proper way, by the community. The RfC about Fox News, which precipitated the current closure debate, has been marked by a considerable amount of point-y-ness on both sides. The motion to close is just a very point-y effort by those who oppose the premise of the RfC to demonstrate their disapproval of it. The last time I looked, the sky had not fallen as a result of that RfC, and neither has Wikipedia gone out of existence. The whole reason for Requests for Comment is to request comments. Motions to close prematurely are like childish temper tantrums. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• I can't help but be reminded of the frequent use of filibuster threats, and as a reaction, cloture filings, in the United States Senate. harej 22:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting closure of RfC/U

Is there a place to request closure of a user conduct RfC? I can't find one... If this is the correct place, could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimmy McDaniels? User would not voluntarily stop editing article, so the issue was taken to AN/I here, resulting in an indefinite topic ban. Yworo (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably better to first try the assistance page, but that's ok. I'll close it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Needing some guidance on citing documents

I have been working on a page about a popular lake/reservoir, and recently reached out to the controlling Water Supply Authority for some information about discharge amounts, gate & spillway operations, etc. They replied in an e-mail with attached PDF documents outlining a lot of good technical info on how the reservoir operates for each season. These PDF documents were described to me as "reference materials" used in "day to day operations." The Water Authority people were fine with sharing the info with me at my request, but unfortunately they do not seem to have any plans of providing these documents in a public forum, such as their website. It's not that the info is confidential, just that they don't want to take the trouble of putting them on line. So, my questions are: 1- Is using this info in violation of WP:ORIGINAL, and, if not, 2- how can I go about providing these references so that others can verify the information (short of purchasing a domain myself and posting them there); and 3- is this the right place to come for help with this? Thanks! The Eskimo (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Formatting problem at RFC/A

The note concerning Talk:Human has a collapsed section, missing {{Collapse bottom}}, so all sections below that at RFC/A are collapsed. I don't know where the page is to correct it. Anthony (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Starting RFCs knowing user is unwilling to participate?

If you have begun the steps - but not started - an RFC/U against an user, but this user has made it clear they refuse to participate in it, is it worth the effort to initiate the RFC/U process? --MASEM (t) 13:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the issue/problem. But if it is serious enough, there are two reasons I can think of right off the bat: A) You can get others to agree/disagree with the person bringing the case up and B) if the issue rises to the need for ArbCOM involvement, by starting the RfC you can show the attempt to resolve the issue. ArbCOM often expects to see an RfC or other significant attempt before they will accept caases.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

RFCs are voluntary, and the editor is technically not required to participate. In addition to the above comments, such an RFC/U can be used to collect evidence and to indicate whether the community is still willing to continue being patient with the user. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Coming back here as the noted RFC/U is up, the editor has confirmed that he will not participate - but after it was posted and this acknowledgment, the editor still engages in the exact same behavior - possibly even more egregiously - which is driven editors from conversations and spelled out in the RFC/U. Clearly there is an ArbCom case coming soon here. But is there any interim steps that could be done here? I really can't think of this being an admin action unless it was truly disrupting the project (it's less critical than that, but it's more than just an annoyance). --MASEM (t) 12:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

The instruction for filing a RfC explicitly state "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template.". How is this enforced and/or are requests which violate this instruction (both in terms the admonition to be brief and to be neutral) in any way redacted or edited?radek (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Damn good question and it deserves an answer. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I see there has still not been an answer to how these silly RFCs are actually enforced. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Things on wikipedia are not 'enforced' except at need, and then only grudgingly. We expect that people will follow the rules and do their best to make a brief neutral statement; when someone doesn't, sooner or later someone will come along to complain about it. RfC's are usually voided implicitly (no on involved will accept the outcome) when it becomes obvious that they were not done in good faith. constructing a bad RfC is generally a waste of time, and may even been seen as disruptive, so there's not really much point to it. Not that everyone gets that, mind you, but that is what generally happens. --Ludwigs2 21:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the RFC process is really more for when people are indeed good-faith actors, willing to work for the best outcome. When the issue gets out of hand such that binding resolutions are necessary, that's when arbitration is involved. harej 22:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments, however i do not see how there can be no enforcement on this matter. I have held a negative view of RFCs for some time because they always seem to hold back debate and progress as people are meant to wait a month for new comments. But the latest RFC takes the biscuit. Just as support for a proposal seemed to be growing (4 supporting a proposal and 1 opposing it at the time) the one that opposed it decided with out any debate to start a RFC with clearly biased wording. Now some of the responses to that RFC are being used by the IP to justify reverting the proposal that had support and got implemented a couple of days ago. As soon as he opened the RFC i complained about it being biased and having no support on the page, but its not got the wording changed.

These RFCs can have a serious impact on debate and an outcome, there should be some way to ensure neutrality in the wording and it should need general support for a RFC, not just one IP taking it upon himself to start one. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We could require that introductory statements in RFCs be "personless," such that they're only signed with the date and not a person's name. That way they can be edited as necessary. This is how non-talk-page RFCs work, I think. harej 17:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's enforced the same way every single rule is: If you see a problem, then you can fix the problem.

There is absolutely nothing in either these rules or in any technical procedure that prevents editors from improving RFC questions. I trawl through the RFC lists every few weeks to do exactly this kind of thing (mostly with an eye towards the "brief" item, which is the one most consistently violated). You can do the same thing, too.* WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

*I'm assuming you all have the good sense not to make unilateral changes to RFCs you're personally involved in, as that's usually quite counterproductive in the "resolution" part of WP:Dispute resolution. In that case, you can discuss it there, or leave a note here. There are a couple of standard approaches to such disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

An issue is that RFC statements are attributed to people, and it isn't a good idea to edit others' remarks. harej 03:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if the original was signed with someone's name rather than merely a timestamp, then you'd want to make sure that the new question kept only the timestamp. See this example for one way to go about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"RFC bot" deleted my rfc 18 minutes after it was added to Talk:Hamas page

Am I doing something wrong? See the following at history tab of Talk:Hamas:

20:30, 20 September 2010 RFC bot (talk | contribs) (104,347 bytes) (Removing expired rfctag) (undo) 20:12, 20 September 2010 Haberstr (talk | contribs) (104,363 bytes) (RfC added) (undo)

Haberstr (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to put the RFC tag at the top of the specific section with the question, not at the top of the whole page. Otherwise, the bot assumes that your RFC question is the entire page, and that the RFC is as old as the first dated comment on the page. (Besides, if you don't put the tag in the section, then people responding to it may not find the right part of the talk page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin review requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings

Following several lengthy discussions on the subject, and a well-publicized discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings, we still can not seem to agree on what exactly was decided. Admin review and summation of the discussion would be most useful here. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

rogue administrators, endless beurocracies and the rest of the wiki user base

Hi. It seems as though some administrators have more than 50 percent of their edit history in the information-destruction side of the wikipedia project. some erase articles BEFORE they give notice, some do it without any regard to a positive vote to keep the article and yet others erase whole articles for dubious reasons such as "I have already deleted this article in the past".

Many of them seem to be using the beurocratic process to further a personal or political agenda (sometimes this might be nothing more than to make deletion threasts).

Is there an easy way to use the system to denounce such abusers of the good-will of other contributers and editors? Is there a vote to become an admin or to lose such rights?

I have tried to find the "right" place for this comment, but found nothing but endless and many duplicate beaurocracies. please help to naviagate this question, if you can not answer it. Using the talk page of an article is not an option after it has been unilaterally deleted.

thanks.--Namaste@^? 00:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A better place for this discussion may be : Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. For best response you should probably link to examples of such behavior. Unomi (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

done. for a recent example see Philip Schneider.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Diza (talk • contribs) 12:49, 20 August 2010 UTC

well, if it takes 3 weeks and 3 different requests just get premission to improve an article, AND NO ONE STANDS FOR THE WILLIN USERS, then i'm out. lets erase more article, that's why some admins seems to be here for.--Namaste@^? 13:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely. I improved the Deva Victrix page by adding a separate section for the Elliptical Building, as this is perhaps the most interesting building on the site. I also added a new section for the Market Hall inscription.

And then along comes the mighty Dougweller and deletes the whole lot, because he took exception to a reference to an author called Ellis, although the vast majority of data was from Chester Archaeology (because I live there). Had Dougweller even heard of the Deva fortress before now? No, I thought not. So Wiki readers are denied any knowledge of the Market Hall inscription and Elliptical Building, and because of what? Because Dougweller has decided he knows everything? He then proceeds to follow me around Wiki deleting everything. Had he even heard of the Elagabal of Elagabalus before today? And yes, that got deleted too. Did he know of the similarities between Britannia and Athena? No, but that went too (even though the page already mentions a link to Minerva, who is Athena anyway !!) Frankly, Dougweller is a site vandal, not an administrator.

If administrators want to edit, I suppose that is their perogative, but wholesale deletion without consideration is reducing the font of knowledge, not increating it.

Narwhal2 (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Narwhal2, you're commenting on contributors instead of contributions again, stop it. Rather than calmly reinserting the non-Ellis elements, or asking that the non-Ellis elements be reinserted, you unnecessarily took offense, failing to assume good faith (by the way, WP:AGF is a cornerstone of this website). Also, that you cited Ellis shows a failure to understand our reliable sourcing guidelines. Something the wise and mature consider is that they are at fault when there is trouble, especially if they are the only person on their side.

With regards to the OP, I'm not an admin, but I used to do a lot of tagging for article deletion. A lot of articles that are deleted without notice are pure garbage, and a lot of editors that take way too much personal offence, like a quick mistake by an overworked admin is somehow equal to raping their grandmother or something. There are a lot of advertisements and vandalism that honestly don't need any notification but warnings. Article deletion is not based on votes, but on pre-established guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Narwhal2's concern is content insertion/removal in non-deleted articles, not article deletion (user has zero deleted-contributions in article-space), so WP:AFD/WT:AFD are not the place to discuss it. When editors are acting solely as editors, it doesn't matter whether they're admins or not...again evidence of focus on person not specific actions. DMacks (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's back anyway, and there seem to be COI issues here as well as RS. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Schneider (2nd nomination) seems pretty straightforward public discussion. WP:DELREV is the place to contest that deletion if there are concerns about the administrative actions or other related process for it. I don't see involvement of Dougweller there...seems like Narwhal2 is just using this as a coatrack for his unrelated specific concern. That's why we don't speak in generalities and without actual links to actions here. DMacks (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

copied from ANI:

•  Confirmed the following are socks of one another:

• Disranter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Arnatorim (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Samosterat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoogson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Narwhal2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

checked byUser:Tiptoety

all socks of Ralph Ellis Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing mention of 30 days from rfctag

I'm removing mention of "30 days" from the RfC tag. It's technical number for the bot that was never meant to become the "normal running time of an RfC". Now it's been widely misconstrued as the normal time that an RfC should run, even spawning debates like the one above over "early closure", a concept that means nothing for an RfC, since there has never been a fixed running time.

As an aside, it might make sense to have the bot remove the tag based on activity instead of a fixed time limit, like the logic that Miszabot uses to archive talk page sections. Gigs (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The standard was set by Betacommand back in the halcyon days of 2007 when he wrote the bot, and I continued the tradition when I re-wrote the bot. I agree that it is arbitrary, and I will maybe someday make it better. harej 21:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100%. When a discussion has reached consensus, it has reached consensus... when it is ready to close, it should be closed.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the place to discuss the font-letter-type used in wikipedia?

When I'm in "edit-mode", I get a font that shows the capital letter "I" (e.g. as in India), different from the letter "L" (e.g. as in Lima). When I'm in the article reading mode, the capital I and regular l appear the same. It struck me when I was studying the disease "Leprosy" and cam across following: "...many leper colonies...". First I assumed there were colonies of leprosy infected people in the region of the city of Ieper in Belgium, a heavily affected region during World War I, but actually they were referring to leprosy colonies = "leper colonies" in general. And that's just caused because the capital "I" and regular "l(ima)" look the same. Therefore I want to support a RFC to use a font that has 2 different ways of writing both as it would improve reading.--SvenAERTS (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Tor (anonymity network) and "Hidden Wiki"

This article links to The Hidden Wiki, which lists how to find child pornography as well as sites that have it. Surely this isn't allowed?--129.63.166.98 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Improve general awareness of RfCs

From working with different organizations where information's often sent out seeking general input, I'm struck that our own mechanism for doing that on Wikipedia could be made more effective. Two possibilities I identify are:

1. (Big change, potentially not welcomed by all) A large number of users, who may well have much valuable input to RfCs, may be completely unaware of the system. We use global notices for some things ("come and join the Wikipedia event in October; please give feedback on the pending changes trial" ...). There is scope for using a similar mechanism for RfC alerts.
2. (Tweak to existing mechanism) Those of us "in the know" about RfCs, who watchlist the half-dozen or so relevant pages, would benefit from an easier way to determine the details of a change that pops up in the watchlist. Currently, looking at a diff, or at the page itself, is more of a spot-the-difference exercise than seems ideal. There is scope for isolating changes in some way, or perhaps using informative edit summaries, so that it's more obvious what's changed when looking at a watchlist entry.

I have suggested two possibilities; clearly there may be others. The RfC function strikes me as an important one in Wikipedia or any organization. What opinions are there about the potential to increase its efficacy? PL290 (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I did (more than once, I think) suggest a roster of RFC volunteers who, on a cab rank principle (or perhaps at random, but that's trickier to do) would provide input to RFCs, as a sort of jury duty. They would of course recuse themselves if appropriate or be free to say "too busy" right now, etc. But that way you'd ensure maybe 3 or 4 people looking at each RFC who have little or no prior involvement. Rd232 ^talk 09:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC would be used more if it was a decent way of resolving a dispute. That may happen in some cases, sadly the RFCs ive had the misfortune of being part of are far from productive. Either it grinds debate to a halt as you wait a whole month for a couple of comments which often solves nothing or you get flooded as people cheat and encourage others to vote. It also appears to be a tactic of demanding a RFC to prevent consensus from being formed because the consensus may be against an editors desired option. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Section break: watchlist notice RfC

Should we start to use watchlist notices for new RfCs? From working with different organizations where information's regularly sent out seeking general input, I'm struck that our mechanism for doing that on Wikipedia may well leave a great proportion of our editors unaware of requests for comment. They may simply not know about the RfC system at all. This severely limits the scope for pooling of thoughts and general wisdom about the RfC topic. We use watchlist notices for general awareness of other things: "come and join the Wikipedia event in October"; "please give feedback on the pending changes trial". Should we also use them to alert the community when a new RfC is raised? PL290 (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• I understand that editors may be completely unaware of the RFC system, so that could be something to remedy. That said, I don't know that a watchlist notice is a good idea, since there are quite a lot of RFCs, and I know I'd just ignore them if I started getting spammed with all of them. Of those editors who do know about RFCs, wouldn't they either watchlist or occasionally check in on whichever categories they were interested in if they wished to help out? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• No. I agree with Verno that this would end up feeling like spam. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think this is a particularly good idea, partly for the reasons stated, but also partly because I don't think it's right to treat RfC as some sort of responsibility. Everybody is self-selecting in what they provide to wikipedia. If the problem is lack of awareness of the RfC system, I think a better solution would be promotion of it through other means, like a link from the mainpage. siafu (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. Sounds like a good idea. Very few people comment on those, probably because hardly anyone visits the listing page. I'd like to see something other than "we need more money" pop up in watch list. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Revised yes. I do not think we should have watchlist notices for every single RfC (that would be annoying). However, it might be a useful idea to have periodic (say, monthly) watchlist notices linking to the RfC pages in general so that people are reminded of their existence. it would be equally effective and less obtrusive. --Ludwigs2 05:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, with an RfC alert system. Posting an individual watchlist notice for each new RfC may be considered spamming by some. Instead, show a non-intrusive alert (as a watchlist notice or elsewhere), "Community-wide attention is requested for one or more new discussions", with a link to a page where I can see which discussions are new since I last looked. PL290 (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Qualified support - perhaps as an "opt-in" you could set in preferences. Another possibility would be to add the current list of RFCs to The Signpost, although that of course would restrict reminders to subscribers. Gatoclass (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Qualified support - One ought to be able to opt-in to just the categories of RfC in which he or she is interested. Phy1729 (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Something should be done (but not something ending up intrusive). For instance, how about a Gadget which provides a list of RFCs on the watchlist page? Adding RFCs into the Signpost is a good idea - it may be a limited audience, but it would help a little. Rd232 ^talk 19:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Do something as per Rd232 above. I agree that the Signpost would be a good idea, even if a limited one. Also, maybe, something like a gadget, as he suggested, or maybe a periodic (monthly?) newsletter-type notice for those who want to receive one, might work as well, particularly if it allowed individuals to specificy the areas of interest they are interested in. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• No, but something else along these lines would be useful. Gadgets and the like would work for those already interested, while the impetus for this suggestion is getting more people into RfC process to begin with. Posting every new RfC would be spam-esque, but some sort of (temporary) campaign to get more people involved might be a good idea, especially in less-interesting topic areas. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 20:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

POV Pushing

I usually mantain and revert vandalism and pov-pushing on the Iran–Iraq War page, but some users have been constantly trying to push their POV even against previous consensus, specially on the Belligerents section. It can be clearly seen on the Talk:Iran–Iraq War page. Should I open a RfC or a mediation request? Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I second this request. This kind of unsourced POV editing has been going on for years. I remember that issue resurfacing in the summer [13]; some IP users and a couple of Iranian users with an agenda keep posting their stuff on supposed US participation in the war alongside Iraqis, usually when they believe to have gained upper hand with their sheer number (against the regular, more neutral users). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Some new features!

Howdy howdoo, Wikipedia! If you have been paying attention, you will see the fantastic changes I have made to the RFC bot (and the troubles I have encountered getting there). If you haven't been paying attention:

• RFCs which have been archived will now be removed from the lists immediately. No more archived discussions on the RFC lists.
• Detailed edit summaries. The bot had them in the halcyon days of 2008 but then they disappeared because whatever. They've returned because I love you.

Please take good advantage of these new features. I know I probably will. harej 05:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Animals or Biology RFC category?

Seems like we should have an animals or at least biology RfC category. Do these things fall under science right now? Some guy (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, biology RFCs are science RFCs (sci). Is there any compelling reason why they should get their own category? harej 04:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

POV Pushing

An editor named Leadwind has made a large number of edits to Gospel of Luke over the past couple of days. He has been pushing a POV, where he discounts the views of scholars who he labels "apologists" or "sectarian". There were many sources from widely published scholars and well-regarded publications that he just deleted because he said they were "apologists" (i.e. they are scholars who happen to be Christian). His edits fly in the face of wikipedia policy as he is trying to push what he thinks is the "true" view. He has one editor backing him up, so there isn't a whole lot I can do, although other editors have made comments on his inappropriate methods. They have also reverted some of his changes, only to find him or the other editor undoing their edits. He made so many changes that the page is now locked because of this dispute. Please see my comment on the matter (Talk:Gospel_of_Luke#Page_locked) and please comment.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor deleted this comment. Why is this an inappropriate topic for this board? It seems another editor, a few comments up, has the same problem on another page.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Because at the top of this page, it specifically says "This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment." The comment above is asking for an opinion about opening an RFC, so it squeaks by.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC removal

An RFC i Launched was removed from this page with the comment " Withdrtawn at talk page" by another user [[14]] I did not in fact wihtdraw it it was removed by the same user [[15]] is this permisable? Both to A. claim its been withdrwan and B. rem ove it in the first place without discusion?Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd just assume it was a mistake, and re-add the RfC tag. let's see if he removes it again.--Ludwigs2 20:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi, this doesn't accurately reflect what happened. I've already replied to the user on this giving the correct details [16], where the content is being discussed. ...The above post was edited after I'd replied on it. I'm guessing he read it because he replied there to it ten minutes later, before the change. I'll continue efforts to work with him and others in a collegial fashion on the page there with the aim of improving the article, together. The matter doesn't seem anything that can't be helped with some decent sources.Best, Whitehorse1 20:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me but I was asking if what you did was within the spirt if the rules (my change was to make it claer what I intended based on you mis-understanding of my intent). But the reponse from Ludwig (forgive me if I mis-undertand) is that you should not have removed it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now re-added it, I have changed the wording to refelct a new issue that has been raised.Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's clear you intended to make the unfounded allegation, given you repeated it in the addition. Another person since said they don't think an RfC is the right action either, not to mention the far from neutral, begs the question wording. ...Anyway, this isn't a good use of my time. The responding to things you raise only for you to ask their relation to the topic or add increasing comments not considering what others have said isn't something I'm interested in. I'll unwatchlist this as am done with this page/discussion. I'm interested in collaborating and cooperating with whoever's interested to develop a high quality article. Off to focus on that. –Whitehorse1 19:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Failing to resolve the dispute

Hi! I'm a bit uncomfortable raising this now, as this isn't meant to reflect on a particular RFC. But I'm curious about the current wording of the "failed to resolve the dispute" part of the process, as it doesn't point to any particular standards of dispute resolution. It seems difficult to dig this up in the archives, so I was wondering if anyone knew offhand of a discussion which looked at this? If not, I'll try and dig through, but the key words I thought of prove horribly frequent. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

From time to time, RFCs don't resolve a dispute. (I'd argue they seldom resolve anything.) Usually disputes which are so intractable that discussion can't resolve it end up at mediation or arbitration. Or do you mean the words themselves, "failed to resolve the dispute?" I don't think there is a particular history behind the words. harej 15:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The "failed to resolve the dispute" bit really goes to the efforts of the certifiers. For example, if a certifier raises a concern on an editor's talk page about their offensive edit summaries and proposing alternatives that would convey the same thing without being offensive, that would be an attempt to resolve a dispute. An example of failing to resolve that dispute is where the editor responds to that certifier with a similarly offensive edit summary, and continues using offensive edit summaries. A failure may also be when the editor does not respond to the certifiers attempt but continues with offensive edit summaries. Of course, care should be taken with "no response" to attempt to resolve the dispute; sometimes they try to work on things through their actions rather than their worded-responses to concerns. Hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Both comments do help. :) I probably won't raise this in detail until after the current issues have passed, because I don't want to needlessly stand on procedure. I guess my concern, though, is that generally the current wording states that an attempt should be made, but leaves it open as to whether the attempts to resolve the dispute by other means were effectively exhausted. I suspect the spirit of the requirement, if I read your comments correctly, is that RFC is here for when a real effort to fix things through discussion has failed. At any rate, I'll think this over and revisit it later. Thanks for your help! - Bilby (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Another rouge "editor"

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I'd like to report Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) for abusive behavior. Reverting pages without cause, threatening other users without even talking to them first, acting like an administrator and being highly disruptive to the community. 76.19.251.152 (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's rogue. Rouge is makeup. Others have also undone your crap edits. Your edits are vandalism, just as you were told, and accusing me of vandalism and threats doesn't make them any less so.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I think both (all three) need to calm down a bit there. For example, on Uniform fetishism there are no cites to confirm whetehr a cheerleader is sub or dom, but as the past consensus has been happy with the role being defined as sub then to change it without discussion is not the done thing. I wouldn't go so far as to call it vandalism - at least not yet, but after this discussion, then it might. You sincerely believe the role to be dom, others feel differently.

Put it this way (to the IP) what evidence do you have in the way of cites and references that the cheerleader is a dom role, or that japanese uniforms are not attractive (I forget the exact quote.)

And to Kintetsu, I'd say that calling edits crap isn't helpful either. The japanese uniform edit wasn't the greatest, but the uniform fetish contributions are merely a differing viewpoint from yours (and mine, as it happens,) but I think they fall short of vandalism, and far short of being "crap".

Please don't reply here with regard to the above, incidentally, let's take it to the talk page.

One final point - my fingers are freezing, so please excuse any poor typing. a_man_alone (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Falsely accusing someone of vandalism simply to preserve your own personal edit IS vandalism. You got called out on it. 76.19.251.152 (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I think you guys are misusing the term vandalism, this sounds more like edit warring. See WP:VANDALISM: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia ... Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism ... However, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, but edit warring." — GabeMc (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks fourth, with 26746 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC is a pretty old Wikipedia institution, and naturally the question of how we carry out requesting comment is something that would generate a lot of buzz. Sure we've had 25 megabytes of chat, but what does that really mean? harej 06:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Even where there is a good explanation for why many bytes have been used, improved efficiency can still be of economic benefit regarding the capacity of servers.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's server's economy of scale is such that RFC's 25MB talk page archive doesn't really mean anything. Besides, the "damage" is already done, and text is a pretty damn efficient use of jiggabytes. (Imagine if we communicated with BMPs.) harej 07:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That page includes all the subpages, which means that every time someone creates a talk page a WP:Requests for comment/Some controversial subject or WP:Requests for comment/Some irritating user, then the report assumes that these comments somehow "belong" to this page. Very little of the volume has anything at all to do with this particular talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Unlisted RFC request

I added an RFC template a few hours ago,[17] but it has not been listed by the bot. Does it normally take longer than the stated 30 minutes? Or is it broken? Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

My talk page explains. harej 06:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And sorry to hear you have an iPad.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A particular RfC/U

Resolved

 –  Done. HeyMid (contribs) 16:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

YellowMonkey's RfC/U has been closed indefinitely until YellowMonkey has returned. However, it hasn't yet been added to the archive. Should it be added there or not? HeyMid (contribs) 21:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it should (and I note that you have already done so). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, but I decided to do so anyway. HeyMid (contribs) 16:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

2011_Brisbane_Floods Edit War

The summary: Two days ago, I was adding information about newly activated evacuation centers and missing persons resources to the 2010-2011_Queensland_Floods page. I was told this was not appropriate. I created a second, more specific page called 2011_Brisbane_Floods and continued to add area status and links to official flash-flood warnings. This page was marked for speedy deletion. I was marked a vandal and a sock-puppet. The administrator banned multiple C-blocks and a B-block, over 60,000 ip addresses, and locked multiple pages against any edits, including his own, in the course of an edit war.

At the moment of writing, the original page (concerning an evolving natural disaster) is still locked against all edits.

I am writing this from inside the disaster zone. I am lucky enough to have the time, electrical power, and internet access to do so. I have first-hand knowledge of this situation.

I made this quite clear, as early as I could, and asked for patience if some of my edits were clumsy and rushed. We were being advised that the city CBD would loose power and possibly all telecommunications in about six hours. I believed that if I could only get the raw information into wikipedia, then other editors with more experience and time would help push that content in whatever direction was needed to satisfy all editorial requirements. At the very least, I expected some patience with what was already marked a 'current event'. I was wrong. The content was marked for speedy deletion. I appealed. It was deleted section by section anyway, and then replaced with a redirect.

There was no 'opinion' in this article, merely a growing list of links and reference to other resources, mostly news sites and Facebook alerts from the Queensland Police Service. The only place on the internet where that content can still be found is here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1945828&cid=34844226

I invite you to read that content, and compare it to what is currently in the wiki. In fact, I dare you.

This entire situation is almost inconceivable to me, and at odds with what I thought was the 'Wikipedia mission'. If there are any editors and administrators actually reading this: I understand that you have editorial standards, but I am not asking you to justify removing this content as a matter of editorial policy. I'm asking you to justify this decision as a human being.

Wikipedia is an organisation that was built on the charity of others, but you seem unwilling to extend that charity in return. In this case, 'editorial standards' were placed above the needs of suffering individuals to access vital information. And 'vital information' is not hyperbole; it would be really nice to add links to the official warnings of raw sewage in the water, for example.

Did I 'evade a ban' on posting to Wikipedia? Absolutely. I have been nothing but honest, if sometimes abrupt, and said that I would keep posting information on the floods as long as I was able. I informed your administrator that I could not be banned. You can guess the response. I am quite sure he holds me in some contempt, but that is not supposed to matter; Only the quality of my content.

Do I really need to explain, step by step, the danger your 'administrator' put real people in by removing primary emergency contact information from a page about a natural disaster, while it was occurring? Is still occuring? Is this behaviour truly representative of Wikipedia? If so, perhaps it's time for some soul-searching. If the answer turns out to be 'yes', then I'm happy to walk away. I really am.

I no longer care about getting that information into the wiki. There may be people still in the evacuation centres, but we didn't loose all communications. Official sites are back online, and others took up the slack.

I have allowed time to pass before posting this, but I admit I may not yet be calm. I apologize in advance. Thank you for your patience.

JediJeremy

58.106.139.138 (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I'm sure most people would be sympathetic to your plight, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not intended as a notice board, news channel or communications "life-line". This must sound harsh, but it is a fact, and the rules of Wikipedia can make no exception.110.168.66.192 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Closing RFCs

Can someone give me some background on how exactly this works? I have a request on my talk page (User talk:Magog the Ogre#Request for RfC close from someone to close the RFC. I don't know if I'm determining consensus, no consensus, or what. I'm completely new at this process. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've only closed a couple, but what I do is copy over the debate into my userspace somewhere and then systematically reduce it. For instance, I might create three subdivisions: "include" "not include" "other". Under each section, I would list those who hold that opinion, along with a succinct summary of why. If there are significant conversations about that, I would subthread those. (I can't quickly find an example of my doing so with an RfC; I have a variety of sandboxes and have occasionally flushed them. But here's a TfD, immediately prior to my beginning to formulate my closure: [18]) After I've done all of that, I can usually read through my notes and get a pretty clear picture of which way the conversation inclines. Just like with AfDs, you put most weight in those supporting one position or another if there is a sound policy basis for them to do so. I try to avoid no consensus closures on RfCs unless I can offer advice on how better to reach resolution. The only time I've ever done so is when an RfC raised multiple questions and consensus was achieved in most, but not all. I recommended a new RfC on the larger issue behind the unresolved question at a better board. That was conducted and resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indexing and evil

I wonder whether there is support for {{NOINDEX}}ing user RFCs, as a WP:Don't be evil move?

Editors could always choose to remove it, but I think it's probably worth adding even to the closed ones. I'm not sure that anyone's favorite web search engine really needs to find these disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

update to RFC description

I updated the Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#RfC:_Describing_Uruguay.27s_pending_recognition_of_Palestine, but I don't know if the RFC list will be automatically updated with the changes? Alinor (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U: broken?

Why is the interest and participation in RFC's so minimal? In this way the purpose of the institution of RFC/U is completely negated. If we want to continue to have RFC/U as a part of the dispute resolution process we need to find a way to make the community particpate - otherwise people will start to go straight to arbcom.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Historically, people still do go straight to ArbCom when they feel like it and historically, they're (correctly) directed to try some other step when they haven't completed them. The reason RfC/U might be perceived to be negated is because parties often do not approach a dispute with the frame of mind required by RfCs - to attempt to resolve the dispute and to try to come to an agreement. I'm not just talking about the subject of a RfC/U - I am talking about the certifiers as well. More often than not, it's approached with a mindframe of "doing this checkbox so my arbcom request can be accepted", "try to effectuate as much reputational damage as possible", "try to drive away the pest altogether", or something else that specifically isn't "attempting to resolve the dispute and coming to an agreement" (foremost). That said, having closed several RfCs for the past few years, I do find some that are better than others (recently, I closed one where there was resolution between both parties, and outsiders also endorsed the outcome). And I'm not sure if the interest/participation is quite as minimal as you suggest or what you are basing that assertion on; I've seen article RfCs get less input from less users. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Has this been tried?

At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution Rd232 said the following:

One of the things I've repeatedly suggested, but haven't be able to make happen, is to get more use of a collaborative wiki approach to discussion: i.e. the collaborative drafting of a Shared View on Subject X, instead of sometimes dozens of not dissimilar individual views. That would certainly help with the scaling issues, which is particularly noticeable in certain RFCs. Currently we have Endorsements of individual views, which helps, but it's just not as effective as the usual Wikipedia drafting/editing/revision approach to articles. Rd232 talk 12:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

At RfC/U, for instance, I could see the community collaboratively creating an "essay" describing the editor's overall behaviour, with everything supported by diffs; and, once that's done, collaboratively outlining the arguments in favour and against various proposed interventions. This would seem to me to be a much more useful basis for administrative action than a string of comments and endorsements. Has it been tried anywhere? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Medical article category

It is non-obvious which category medicine articles should be placed in. SpinningSpark 17:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Maths, science, and technology appears to be the closest match. harej 01:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there are enough medicine-related RFCs to justify its own category. You can also advertise it at WT:MED if you're concerned that it might get overlooked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not concerned, I just wanted to know were to put it. I did indeed put it in Maths, Science and Technology, but it's definitely not maths and many of its practitioners would say it is an art, not a science (although it certainly uses a good deal of science). I am not looking for a new category, but perhaps the project page could mention medicine in the navigation box so it is clear where it goes. SpinningSpark 06:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC created by sock of banned user

I've removed the RFC at Category talk:Track gauge by size because it was created by a sock of a banned user. Members of the Trains WikiProject will continue to discuss issues raised as a result of this editors disruption at WP:TWP. We should be able to deal with the issues at WP level. Mjroots (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispute on consensus at page India

Hello,

This is regarding a dispute at the following page: India, the issue is discussed at length here on discussion board: Dispute on consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India#No_consensus_in_the_secondary_and_tertiary_sources_for_India_also_Bharat.

From my side all the required information is presented, and consensus was sought. Still the editors are not willing to co operate and come to consensus. I had also presented a list of doubts and relevant clarity in the end, about 25 issues in all, which is ignored. I am also posted a warning here.

I would like to therefore take up the RFC/dispute here so that the consensus can be agreed to, which is not apparently though all reasons and sources are presented at the discussion page. I would like to know steps needed from my side, so that I can present more clarifications and sources as needed.

I have put this on dispute page also, in case that is its correct location.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution#Dispute_on_consensus_at_page_India)

Thank you..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there some steps needed for this RFC? I would like to contribute..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Reopen

Can somebody reopen the merge talk at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis? B-Machine (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Two quick replies:

• Wrong forum; sorry. You might try Wikipedia:Proposed mergers.
• The typical thing to do is to start by talking to whomever closed the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:September 11 attacks / Removal of conspiracy theories section

An editor has requested comment from other editors for this discussion. Within 30 minutes, this page will be added to the History and geography list. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I have a complaint.

U.S. Terrorist Attack on Air Canada Flight #1744 in the middle east, Jan. 2000. File this under conspiracy theories section of September 11 attacks article. now.

70.181.245.245 (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. As is indicated at the top of this page and in an edit notice you would have seen when making this post, this is not a page for discussing particular disputes. It is a page for discussing the RFC process itself. You can discuss this at Talk:September 11 attacks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Advice page drift

We seem to have minor language differences between RFC and RFC/U that are being wikilawyered over at PBS's RFC/U. If we're going to spread the directions out over half a dozen pages, then those pages must not contradict each other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Which parts are you referring to (regarding contradictions)? I thought we settled this issue during the revamping a while back...but maybe there's a bit leftover. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently WP:RFC says pages with poorly demonstrated proof of previous resolution attempts "may be deleted", while WP:RFC/U says they "will be deleted". The discrepancy was being put forward as proof that the RFC/U was illicit and the dispute therefore did not need to be resolved. Since deletion isn't absolutely guaranteed at the 48-hour mark, and since substance is more important that bureaucratic process, I think that both pages should say "may be deleted".

I don't know if there are any other differences; when the pages got split up in late 2009, I gave up on them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ending RfC

I think this section needs elaboration. It doesn't answer the following questions:

1. How do we remove RfC tag, simply delete it?
2. What do we do with {{rfcid|#####}} tag?

I'd appreciate if a knowledgeable admin adds that info there. Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 07:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Mary Moorman

Someone has got the "camera on ebay" section of the Mary Moorman page all messed up. I have personally met Mary Moorman and heard much of her story of what happened on the day of JFK's assassination and I know for a fact that the camera has been DESTROYED. You can find the interview on iantique.com. She doesn't describe the way it got destroyed but it did. Please let me edit that page and don't undo it. Because you have VERY false information on that and Mary Moorman is a very gentile, honest woman and we shouldn't have incorrect history about her on this site.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.78.49 (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't a useful place to ask for help like this. (I know: Wikipedia is huge and therefore hugely complicated.) Your first stop should be Talk:Mary Moorman. If that doesn't work, then you can ask at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (a whole page dedicated to fixing errors about living people). Additionally, if wanted, Ms Moorman herself could contact the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team if the matter seems especially serious or urgent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone look at this?

This page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges_of_the_International_Court_of_Justice - tells us that, as of 2010, judges sat on the ICJ from the USSR. I suspect this may not be accurate somehow. Where can we go to flag this up or get the information corrected? doktorb _words^deeds 15:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the page history, that summary was added by S.Örvarr.S (talk · contribs). Perhaps s/he meant "the former USSR". No matter what was meant, your action is the same: You either fix it yourself or you go to that article's talk page and ask your question there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification

If I let interested editors know, in neutral talk page messages, that an RfC/U is ongoing, does that violate WP:CANVASS? --Coemgenus 11:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It depends on whom exactly you are informing and whom exactly you are not informing, including the pertinent history of these people with regard to the user at the center of the RfC.

In plain language: If you are secretly planning to help sway the outcome of the RfC, you should probably not proceed, since you're running the obvious risk of (consciously or unconsciously) preselecting the users you are going to notify along your desired outcome of the RfC/U. That is what constitues canvassing. --78.35.237.222 (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Blank pages

Is this page supposed to almost blank? --Falcadore (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A comment was causing the problem. harej 07:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"jurisdictional" gap?

Under Request comment through talk pages, it says

Note that the "policy" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply the existing policies and guidelines to a specific article. The same approach also applies to "style" and "WikiProject" (the other non-article categories).

Now I'm unsure how to continue. I'd like to start an RfC at a MoS talk page, regarding the application of a certain portion of the MoS to a wide range of articles.

Changes to the MoS may or may not be suggested over the course of the discussion, but they are not the goal. But it's also not about any specific article.

However, the Request I'd like to file is very much focused on the Manual of Style and its implementation and application, not about that range of articles. It requires input from style experts, not at all related to the subject matter of those articles.

How would I go about that? What category should I file the request under? --78.35.237.222 (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If the articles are all of the same type, then I think file them under the category of the type of article. (For example, if the RfC is about how to apply italics and titling guidelines to the titles of articles about books, then file it in the category "Art, architecture, literature, and media".) If most but not all of the articles are about topics in one category, file the RFC in that category as well. But if the topics are all over the place, then file under "Wikipedia style and naming". --Danger (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --195.14.204.42 (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If your ultimate goal is to change the text of the MoS page, then you can also list it as a policy question. The typical mistake is people thinking "but the question is how to 'apply' the policy to this sentence in this one article, so that's a policy question, right?" If your discussion is actually on a MoS page, then listing it as a policy-related question is unlikely to draw complaints. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I wrote above, a proposal to change the MoS may or may not arise out such a discussion, but it's not the intended goal or focus.

The typical mistake is people thinking "but the question is how to 'apply' the policy to this sentence in this one article, so that's a policy question, right?" -- Yep, that's where I got stuck and posted here to ask for advice. There appears to be no RfC category specifically for discussions about application of the MoS as related to many articles, not just one or a few.

I think I'd rather file this as policy-related, since imho the MoS is being unnecessarily vague about the underlying rationale at the section I'd like to discuss. --213.196.218.59 (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary vagueness means that we need to consider changing the MoS, and IMO a policy listing is therefore appropriate. You can file it with both, and that might be best: subject-matter experts plus the MoS folks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions not showing up

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines links to three separate RFCs at WT:V, but none of the questions are listed. Is the bot unhappy about having so many RFCs on the page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

They link to the same exact RFC. I'm going to try something. hare j 11:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the number of RFCs listed is totally normal. hare j 11:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is a classic search-and-replace error. To see what the problem was, I removed all the RFC IDs and let the bot assign new ones. It saw three RFC tags, so it assigned three RFC IDs. Except it lumped them all with the same RFC. I am pretty sure I safeguarded against this, but evidently I have not. I've decided to crowdsource the debugging. Here's the code. hare j

I'm having the same problem with the RfC question not showing up for Talk:Media Matters for America. Drrll (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the secret...

...to having the RfC host page reflect the formatting on the talk page? See here and here. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If you view the edit tab on the RFC listing, you'll see that the separate paragraphs are separated as appropriate. I think there's something about the blockquote that crams them together into one paragraph. I am going to find a replacement for blockquote that doesn't do that. (I used to have the bot stick a colon in front of each paragraph, indenting it, but that didn't work as well.) hare j 17:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've become unfortunately aware that WP "blockquote" does not recognize paragraph breaks and each paragraph of a multi-paragraph quote must be individually "blockquoted". Yuk. Isn't there a "pre-formatted" html tag that might do the trick in some fashion?JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You can use the HTML code </br> to insert paragraph breaks inside a block quote.

Harej, you might be able to use or adapt {{Cquote}} for that purpose. I don't believe that it calls the blockquote. 16:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You can use the HTML code </br> to insert paragraph breaks inside a block quote.

Been there, done that already...but tried again and re-confirmed </br> isn't recognized. Ah well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"</br>" isn't a tag. This is really something that should be fixed on the bot's end, not something circumnavigated through kludges. hare j 16:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

While those horrid quotation marks are on my personal irritant list, I'll be more than happy to live with them and their format recognition. Good job to whoever...and thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Text won't show using RfC tool

I used the RfC posting tool, but the text of my request doesn't show. The request also appears twice, without any text. Please help. Athenean (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Empty RfC pages

The bot has just emptied the pages (the two I watch + 1 more I checked), e.g. this diff, but again checking the tags are still on the pages. It all happened about 25 minutes ago, affecting all the pages by the looks of it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably a glitch related not being able to access the list of transclusions. It appears to have resolved itself, however. hare j 18:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming rfctag to just "rfc"

In 2009 when I created rfcbot.php, I originally wanted to name the template {{rfc}}, but that was taken. Now in 2011, with the RFC bot system being well understood and used throughout Wikipedia, I think there's a usability case to be made for renaming {{rfctag}} to {{tl|rfc]}. For one, when removing wrong usages of the template, they seemed to have conflated the purpose of {{rfc}} with that of {{rfctag}}. And after all, more people use {{rfctag}} (i.e., have to remember how to use it and its syntax) than {{rfc}}, which is used as a pre-load for RFC/Us and the like. My question for you folks is: would it be very disruptive to rename the current {{RfC}} to, say, {{RfC boilerplate}}, then rename {{rfctag}} to {{RfC}}? ("Rfctag" will be maintained as a redirect and synonym indefinitely.) hare j 05:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Actually, I'd rename it "RFC boilerplate 1" and move {{RfC2}} to "RFC boilerplate 2". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but where are these boilerplates actually used? Are they transcluded somewhere or included as part of a form? hare j 20:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The buttons are located at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Creation#Ready, but I think the part that needs to be changed is buried in {{RfCsubst}} and {{RfC2subst}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Time duration on user conduct RfCs

Since the page isn't clear, I'd like to propose adding the following text:

"User conduct RfCs, like content RfCs, will normally run for 30 days unless:

• The issue under dispute is taken up in a different conflict dispute forum, such as if an RfAR case on the same matter is formally opened.
• There is consensus on the RfC talk page to close the RfC at an earlier time."

Please weigh in with your thoughts. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No one has objected, so I will be adding the text now. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a bad idea for people in the middle of a dispute to change the governing policies or guidelines.   Will Beback  talk  07:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've undone it for now. If it still seems like a good idea aft the pending disputes are settled then we can add it again.   Will Beback  talk  07:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, it's kind of frustrating to start a discussion, wait 24 hours for input, receive no input so add the text, then have it immediately revert warred. Why didn't you join in the discussion before I added the text? Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A single notice and 24 hours isn't much time or opportunity to respond. The guideline has been stable, so let's let the current dispute get resolved. Changing policies mid-dispute is one of the things that got Jossi into trouble. Let's not follow his example.   Will Beback  talk  08:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that the discussion above shows a lack of consensus for a fixed time limit. Did you see it?   Will Beback  talk  08:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this page isn't closely watched. There is no need for a 30-day timer. There's no automatic closing process, and we see enough deliberate stalling behavior to make any time limit counterproductive.

Actually, if you go look at the past RFC/U pages, the productive work either is resolved in about two weeks, or it takes rather longer than 30 days. More than half of recent RFC/U pages have run for longer than 30 days. We don't want to extend the actually resolved ones for a full 30 days merely because one person refuses to voluntarily close it early (often in a vain hope that someone else will say something nasty about his opponent if only he waits long enough), and we don't want people to feel like it is their "right" to have it closed at 30 days (so if you can avoid compromising that long, then you're home free). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Currently it's a voluntary process with only voluntary outcomes - that has been pretty stable, so if you would like to turn it into something else, open an RfC on the process instead of continuing what you are doing. The actually resolved RfC/Us are just that - resolved and therefore closed. If there is no voluntary agreement between the parties, then there's no actual voluntary resolution. Sometimes the extra time is needed to reflect on what might happen if it stays unresolved. In 2008, an administrator at the outset refused to participate in an RfC/U; substantial input arrived, and 3 weeks later, he submitted a statement which some users found acceptable while others didn't. His subsequent conduct, incidentally, addressed some of the concerns while the pending ones were considered at arbitration. That it happens rarely doesn't mean that it doesn't happen; either you look for resolution as a party or you don't, and people have reconsidered things they have said or done as time passes. 30 days is quite fair in that regard, and if an party is unsatisfied or wants to escalate, the RfC/U does not prevent them from doing so - in fact, they are encouraged to if it persists (which is why we have the option of closing due to other dispute resolution). If you're not interested in resolution, or you expect someone to immediately cave into your demands, then you're probably at the wrong place to begin with (which is why arbs say 'no, we won't intervene, go RfC and actually make an effort to work it out yourselves'). Parties who misuse dispute resolution are opening themselves up to sanctions, but if no sanctions are being imposed by AC, there's probably a reason why (btw, it's not the closing instructions which leads to that outcome). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Need some diffs

Ncmvocalist, you assert in this diff that unnamed arbs (plural) support arbitrary time limits on RFC/User (not other RFC) discussions. Please provide the diffs that prove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not an arbitrary time limit; it's a limit on how much time can be used for a dispute in this venue. I'm not even going to bother digging for diffs because you want to make change; I'm asking all of them to come here and make a decision on whether they're going to endorse your mind-boggling change of letting RfC/Us generally be gamed on the grounds that they have been kept active by litigants or other axe-grinding participants without actually coming to a resolution within a reasonable period of time (30 days). And by the way, the 30 day time limit is not arbitrary in other RfCs either (there are always exceptions, which would obviously also apply here given that the RfC/U process was born from the general RfC process). There will often be good reason for a dispute to be on hold or to extend (eg; user is away/inactive). It's a voluntary process so users need to be able to come to agreements but without clearly or indirectly misusing the process; if a few people are away for at least another day, they may want the closure held off until they've been given a chance to provide input so that the final close is the final close (rather than another contentious spectacle which was enacted because nearly everyone else agreed within 6 hours of the proposal being posted). Some people may wish to revise some of their endorsements before that close to. They don't want to have to keep posting the same proposal over and over, and risk looking tendentious. This is dispute resolution, and if there is an agreement to close, they want resolution...not excuses for more disputes over stupid things. And if resolution is not forthcoming within a reasonable time, they should have escalated it appropriately rather than prolonging the agony of this step. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Any specific number of days is an arbitrary limit. The word arbitrary means "number you pulled out of your hat", not "number that can't be changed or ignored if you want". Thirty days is not a magic, dispute-resolving number. It's a number community pulled out of its hat when we decided to have a bot de-list content RFCs.

That bot doesn't run on RFC/U pages. There is absolutely no need to specify a number of days for RFC/Us. We should close them earlier or hold them open later, depending on the likelihood of success. The date on the calendar is unimportant. "Usually busy for a couple of weeks, if it goes inactive for a couple weeks, then we'll close it" is an accurate description of what happens. "Thirty days" is not reality.

In the last couple of months, fully half the RFC/U pages have been kept open for more than 30 days. One quarter closed much sooner—one after just four days. The range for the last handful ran from four to forty days. Not one closed on day 30. This is an inaccurate description of reality.

Additionally, when we tell people that RFC/U discussions are held for 30 days, we hurt the resolution process. We end up with people demanding that the subject be shamed for a full 30 days for no good reason. Those RFC/U pages should be closed early. We see people prematurely decide it failed because resolution wasn't within sight when the arbitrary calendar date appeared on the horizon, when a longer discussion, held without any fear of a deadline, might have resolved it.

I agree that we shouldn't keep RFC/U pages open forever. If you don't get things resolved in a couple of weeks, you probably won't. But putting a specific, arbitrary number on it is both harmful and unnecessary. RFC/U exists to get things done, not to follow a bureaucratic, calendar-driven procedure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you invite the unnamed arbs to come here to re-affirm their interest in a 30-day timer on RFC/Us? Because I still see no evidence that anyone except you supports the inclusion of a specific number of days in that procedure page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did. And I don't see any evidence of anyone else supporting your bold changes which have been repeatedly reverted. I've already noted that it is not arbitrary, so the fact that you repeat such a stupid characterisation ('timer') is quite remarkable. You've been beating a dead horse ever since you could not get your way with Dicklyon's RfC/U 2 years ago, and it seems the arb made it very clear back then. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You've linked to an irrelevant section; the discussion you doubtless intended is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive_10#RfC.2FUser_time. You might like to go read it again. It shows every single editor except you saying that putting a 30-day timer on RFC/Us is a bad idea:

• Hfarmer thought it discourteous of the closer not to inquire about the status of the dispute.
• Crickel said, "If any sort of timeline was going to be involved, I'd suggest the same sort they use on policies - seven days after the last post."
• Unomi said, "RFC/U are inherently drama ridden, but they shouldn't be able to be 'ignored away'. Honestly I am also opposed to archiving of them due to 'inactivity' for the same reasons, they are either resolved or not." and "I don't know that it should be set in stone".

Oh, and you actually agreed with Crickel that 10–14 days of recent activity was a better choice than a limit on the total length: "That's a very good suggestion; but I'm not sure 7 days is necessarily enough - as this is the second last resort in dispute resolution, perhaps we can agree on 10-14 days?".

There was no 30-day limit in the original rules for closing RFC/U back in 2004. There was no 30-day limit in the closing rules at the time, or, so far as I can tell, at any point in the multiple years between the process' creation and your decision to impose such a limit when you unilaterally decided to re-write the instructions a couple of months after the discussion in which 100% of editors (including you) agreed that recent inactivity was a better solution than a total time-length limit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears that my comments at 02:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC) ring true to this day, so there's little point repeating it now or repeating what I said immediately above & below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Within 30 minutes language on template

I've been helping out recently with a couple of RfCs, and I noticed a few comments about the wording of Template:Rfc that says, "Within 30 minutes, this page will be added ..." That wording makes sense when the template is first added, but it looks ridiculous after the RfC has already been listed for days or weeks. I think there should be a switch in the template that alters the wording to "This page has been added..." once User:RFC bot has added the RfC to the appropriate page(s). I did a couple of quick tests at User:RL0919/MiscTest, copying the code that exists in {{Rfc}} currently and adding 'if' statements. One test version uses a separate 'listed' field; the other just assumes the RfC has been placed on the relevant page once the bot adds the 'rfcid' field. Using the 'rfcid' field seems simpler, since it doesn't require any bot changes or manual intervention, but looking at the bot's edit history, it seems that sometimes the id is placed a few minutes before the RfC is listed. Since this template has a relatively high profile, I wanted to get some feedback before I made any changes on the template itself, and since the template talk page is blank, I figured I would get more of that here. --RL0919 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not ask the bot operator to make sure that "rfcid" is not placed before the RFC is listed and then use the second option? Regards SoWhy 22:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect there is a "chicken-and-egg" problem here. If the rfcid isn't tagged in the template before the listing, then the link from the RfC list won't work correctly at fisrt. If the rfcid is tagged in the template first, then my proposed language switch would change the wording prematurely. Probably either is OK if the time involved is minimal, but I don't know enough about the bot's behavior to know what lag is typical. I'll ping the operator and see if they can comment in this discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Could we just remove the language? It's implied that a page using the RFC template is going to be listed on the RFC page. hare j 00:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it is safe to assume that everyone who sees an RfC would be aware of that, especially for RfCs that appear on article talk pages, where there may be lots of editors who aren't overly familiar with en-wiki practices. Regardless, did you have a suggested alternative wording for the template? --RL0919 (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the template. If an RFC is assigned an RFC ID that means it's on the list or is on the verge of appearing on the list. Thus if rfcid= is defined, the sentence will read "This page has been added" instead of "Within 30 minutes, this page will be added". hare j 21:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes made to RFC categories

I have made the following changes to the RFC categorization system:

• Art, architecture, literature, and media is now Media, the arts, and architecture. The new name is shorter and reflects the "media" abbreviation that has been in use for years.
• Wikipedia proposals (prop) has been revived after being discontinued in 2009.
• Wikipedia technical issues and templates (tech) is a brand new category. It was created to fill in a gap.

If there are any bugs, please let me know promptly. hare j 23:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC Placement on the list by bot

My new RfC, for the Ping'An International Financial Center, was placed at the bottom of the page by the bot with no accompanying text. I tried to add text as described, but it hasn't updated. Could someone advise on how to get the text added and the RfC moved to the top of the page? Merechriolus (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. Harej has helped me and the listing is now corrected. Merechriolus (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Request Board Notice

The "Request Board Notice" could be moved to the top of each sections in bold. This is more user friendly rather than keeping at the bottom of each sections. This change has to be made in the respective section pages; a consensus here will surely help. --Freknsay (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Politics/government/law list not correctly replicating talk page

See "Talk:C (New York City Subway service)" on the list page and compare with what's on the article talk page. Here it is cut off. Anyone know if something has gone wrong or how to fix this? ScottyBerg (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Flight Attendant For Freedom Airlines

Nice to read information about Freedom Airlines. I was one of the first flight attendants operating out of Cleveland Ohio. Pat Bell was over the flight attendants at that time. She soon promoted me to supervisor of flight attendants out of Cleveland and the Michigan cities.Fcolbra (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved editor to close an RfC

I would like an uninvolved editor to please close the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#RfC: Tendentious editing of policy Wikipedia:Verifiability

It has the support of 2 editors, and the opposition of 16 editors, and it seems unlikely to gain consensus support. Thanks in advance. -- Avanu (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Transitional fossil

Someone tried to start an RfC in article space and the bot added it to the list of RfCs, I don't know how to remove it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You remove the template. hare j 06:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Place the rfc template on the top of the talk page?

I posted my first rfc today. The article tells us to place the rfc template at the top of the talk page. I didn't want to do that since there were other templates there already and it seemed presumptuous to reverse standard practice and post on the top. Instead I used the rfc tool so I wouldn't be directly responsible for the placement. I was pleased to see the tool put the new section at the bottom of the page. Is the article wrong (or have I read it incorrectly)? Jojalozzo 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What documentation did you read that said to put the RFC template at the top of the talk page? It is wrong, wrong, wrong. hare j 02:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe you misread it: top of the talk page section (i.e. at the beginning of a particular conversation) but not top of the talk page itself. hare j 02:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I see now that it's saying to put the RfC at the start of a section "that you would like to promote." Is this a new section or an existing one? How is an RfC a promotion of anything? Wouldn't this really be confusing to add to the beginning of an existing section? Shouldn't it say basically, start a new section and add the template at the top? Jojalozzo 04:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It can be either a new section or a pre-existing one; I've seen both done, but it does make more sense to make a new section (since the countdown to expiration begins with the first comment, not when the template was added). RFCs promote the discussion by posting details about it to a list of other such discussions watched by many people. More people are likely to be watching Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law, for example, than Talk:Jim Risch. hare j 05:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I see. It's the discussion that is promoted not the section or a POV. Now I understand the intent.

Why should we put the template at the start of an existing section, shouldn't it go at the end, at least in cases where we follow the template with a neutral presentation of the issue? Jojalozzo 06:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it done three particular ways. Someone creates a new section, asking people to read the above conversation to get the flavor of what the discussion will be on (or they bypass the discussion among the talk page regulars and go right for RFC, particularly in cases where the talk page doesn't have a lot of chatter). Someone creates a subsection or just puts {{rfc}} right at the bottom, marking the point where outsiders are asked to weigh in. Others just stick {{rfc}} at the top of a given discussion section and retroactively deem a conversation to be an RFC. I don't think there is necessarily a correct way, but the easiest is just to make a new section. hare j 07:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just done my first RfC Talk:Kingsmill_massacre#Names_of_victims_2 using the posting tool. It's created a new section below the one in question. The RfC on the talk page says "Within 30 minutes, this page will be added to the Biographies list." It hasn't appeared yet. Have I made a mistake or is there sometimes a longer delay? --Flexdream (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's appeared now, so it seems like the 'within 30 minutes' is inaccurate. And I did do page refresh when I was checking. --Flexdream (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bad Girls Club (season 7)

Can someone comment on this issue? Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Posting a brief description here, about the issue would be helpful to attract interested editors. --Freknsay (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Supervision might be helpful

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz might benefit from some outside supervision. The subject appears to be having trouble with the "do not edit other people's views" aspect of an RFC/U. His efforts to change my view have (I believe) finally stopped, but it sounds on the talk page like there's been a pattern of such changes, rather than just an isolated event, and I've got such limited time right now that I can't check through the history this week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What were you doing?

Please alert users being discussed here, per Wikipedia policy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no such requirement in any policy, and this is the correct place to request assistance from neutral parties for RFC-related problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

30-day duration

I reverted this addition of a 30-day minimum duration. WT:Verifiability#RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence is an exceptional case that also received a watchlist notice. I have participated in RfCs where listing for the default 30 day period was appropriate – in some, I recommended holding them open for the few days remaining despite a lack of active discussion – but I think this change is an overreaction. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Recently there was a requested move on Talk:Burma. I suggested it was widely advertised including an RfC. Once the RM was closed (which usually happens after seven days) there was little point keeping the RfC open for another 23 days as it was embedded in the closed RM request so I removed it. This was case where it was sensible to remove an RfC early. -- PBS (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. We have a default time for the convenience of the bot (people routinely forget to officially close them, so otherwise they would remain on the bot's "open" list for years), not because there's a magic 30-day timer—minimum or maximum, and we get people insisting that the 30-day timer is both, depending on which "side" of the dispute they're on. RFCs may run much longer or much shorter than the default. In fact, it is not unusual for an RFC to be open for only a day or two before someone decides that it wasn't such a good idea to start one, and it is quite normal for a major policy dispute to run twice the normal length. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Visionairea1 editing of He-man

User talk:Visionairea1 persistent removal of legitimate sourced information of the article He-man is destructive and unhelpful and I have also tried communicating to him via his account but to no avail these are his unhelpful edits. [19][20] Dwanyewest (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Visionairea1 also insists on adding personal commentary to the Masters of the Universe‎ article, as well insisting on using all caps on lists of character names. NJZombie (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong page for this sort of problem. Please take it to WP:ANI, where you will get a much quicker response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, discussion at Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service

FYI, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service#adding policy RfCs to Article RfC pages, "need" or "spam"?.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely spam. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Publicity

I've added a subsection giving guidance on advertising RfCs based on the current discussions at WP:V. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is such a good idea. The point of the RFC process is that it's already a centralized listing. The information you provided is pretty specific to major WP:POLICY changes, and is consequently not relevant to the majority of RFCs. I don't think that it's a good idea for this page to repeat the guidance on major policy changes at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Good_practice_for_proposals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So I've decided to remove the text. The original said:

Advertise the RfC in appropriate venues. Some RfCs are of local interest only, but if the RfC might be of interest to one or more projects, post a neutral notice at the appropriate talk pages. RfCs for policies, especially core policies, should be widely and repeatedly advertised. An RfC for a proposed change to WP:V, for example, should be advertised widely via WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:CENT and at WP:VPP. Consider posting an initial announcement of the RfC, and follow notices every week or so to insure the widest possible participation. Further guidance is available at WP:Publicising discussions.

Another editor struck the WP:V-focused example, and added this:

Some editors will want major policy RfCs to remain open for a full 30 days.

I don't think that we should be implying that advertising any RFC is required, or even necessarily encouraged in most cases, given that such notices frequently result in charges of improper canvassing (including, e.g., notices about the WT:V discussion made at every single one of the places recommended originally). At most, we might suggest that editors may optionally post neutral notices in appropriate forums, but I think even that runs into WP:Instruction creep. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point, but we have to also acknowledge that many admins seem to regard wide advertisement of RfCs on policy questions as an absolute requirement--given how much flack was encountered at WP:V for an RfC that was widely advertised, I feel we must have something about advertising procedures here. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with most of the comments so far... the level of advertisement needed depends on the nature and location of the RfC, but given the comments at WT:V, we really do need to tell editors that that an RfC about potential changes to core policies, at least, have to be very widely advertised... and we need to guide editors on how to do that. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a link to WP:Publicising discussions would be appropriate under See also. I didn't remember that there was a section WP:Policies and guidelines#Life cycle – maybe the answer is to make it better known. Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. The WT:Verifiability discussion is an RfC on a core policy, not an RfC on a core policy. WP:Policies and guidelines should be edited if necessary, and the discussion on what notifications are necessary/appropriate should really be happening at WT:Policies and guidelines or WP:Village pump (policy)‎. No one is inserting instructions into WP:Canvassing or WP:Watchlist notices. Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that is sufficient. This page contains instructions on creating RfCs, and since it appears that for important topics many admins hold that wide and repeated advertising is a de facto requirement, we need to make that clear here. I really do not want to see a repeat of what happened at WP:V. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, I just don't feel like you're grasping the scale of the issue here. There are about 80 RFCs open at the moment. All but one are routine questions. Only one could be construed as a major change to a core policy. You're trying to expand the normal-for-everyone instructions to deal with a situation that applies to just ONE of these 80 RFCs, without apparently understanding that you're creating needless, time-wasting burdens for the other 79 and also encouraging anyone who perceives himself as "losing" to complain that the RFC was improperly advertised.

(NB that it's only "major changes" that the community (not just admins) want to see widely advertised. If we wanted every possible policy RFC to be widely advertised, then we'd be automatically spamming these announcements to multiple forums as a matter of course. We don't do that because it isn't actually wanted for routine questions on policies and guidelines.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It was me who made the edit modifying the text before it was later deleted. I didn't watchlist here, and it just occurred to me to look back, so I just found out about the deletion, and I guess I think WhatamIdoing makes a good case for leaving it out. (Quibble: the text didn't make it sound like anything near to all 80 have to do the extra advertising. Rather, I thought it was quite clear that these were instructions only for unusual RfCs of very wide interest.) But if the consensus remains to leave the material out, there's an interesting implication for the RfC at WP:V. Perhaps there really isn't any sort of community consensus that the re-opening was necessary for the purpose of further advertising. I'm going to link to here from WT:V, and see what other editors think about that aspect of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and WhatamIdoing, I am very aware of the implications of the text I'm seeking to add. If we can narrow the focus and define what RfCs require what level of advertisement, that's great. But if an editor acting in good faith advertises an RfC on a policy in multiple venues, despite there being no suggestion here that such is required, and is then roundly criticised for not having advertised the RfC widely enough, we definitely have a problem somewhere, either in the content of this procedural document or elsewhere. Making a change here seems easier than dealing with the other potential issues to me. If anything, I'm seeking to avoid creating the burden of similar missteps, whatever the cause, and we really cannot have it both ways--if admins consider advertising RfCs on core policies a requirement, we need to reflect that here. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's a problem with people claiming that the most widely advertised RFC this year was insufficiently advertised, but I honestly can't think of a way to describe that problem that doesn't massively violate both AGF and NPA.

That situation, by the way, basically proves that the instructions you propose here are useless: Blueboar did exactly what you suggested, and he was unfairly criticized despite doing everything well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree (of course (; ), one point the Blueboar made was that if the requirement for advertising is in fact required, it is not documented. I agree that this would not have helped in that particular case, but I think it's a good reason to make a change here is to help avoid another editor being sandbagged.--Nuujinn (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But this (fairly gentle) requirement is documented—at WP:POLICY, where it belongs. The use of the RFC system is optional for major policy changes; giving notice of the discussions is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The notice at WP:V suggested there was some discussion here about community consensus. I don't see that discussion here, but I do think that processes for advertising widely an RfC that people want to advertise widely, should be explicit. It also makes sense that changes to core policy should be advertised widely, for the sake of whatever policy is adopted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess the intuitive answer is that the bigger and/or more controversial the change, the more the advertising required. In the case at hand, it was advertised widely (including wp:ver, wp:nor, the village pump policy and at centralized discussion), but it was asserted that even that was insufficient advertising. So something to both guide the process and give some reference point for such after-the-fact discussions would be helpful. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I believe Tryptofish was suggesting that there perhaps really isn't consensus about whether or how widely an RfC should be advertised. It seem to me that this is a good venue to approach that question. Does this wording work?

1. Consider advertising the RfC in appropriate venues to reach the appropriate audience. Most RfCs are of local interest only, but if the RfC might be of interest to one or more projects, posting a neutral notice at the appropriate talk pages may be appropriate. Take care to avoid even the appearance of canvassing. RfCs involving significant changes in core policies should be widely and repeatedly advertised more than once. In such cases posting an initial announcement of the RfC, and followup notices to insure the widest possible participation is recommended. Further guidance is available at WP:Publicising discussions.

I think we should work in "Some editors will want major policy RfCs to remain open for a full 30 days", but not in this section. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Apologies if I didn't make it clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd drop "and repeatedly". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, but I added "more than once", since the assertion in the WP:V discussions was that a single posting across multiple boards was insufficient. Let me be perfectly clear, my goal here is to reflect what was asserted by a group of admin to be the de facto policy. I personally think that view of the policy is a bit nuts, but if such assertions by experienced admins are unchallenged, this page should reflect that view. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

While I understand the distinction between asking all of us editors (most of whom, like newbee me, just want to be left alone to write) and those who would be directly affected by a policy change, there is the simple fact that lots of people with agendas exploit every single opportunity to impose their views on everyone else. What appears to be pure common sense to those arguing that there is no need because any sensible person knows that really major stuff needs to be out there for everyone is a vast opportunity to those who really do want to drive an agenda. I think a basic written acknowledgement that an RFC on major issues, policies and concerns should be widely and repeatedly advertised is needed. After all, were it just up to me and others from the real, er, natural sciences (that was humor, oh humorless ones) there sure would be a 'non-truth' policy and it would be nailed down such that the philosophers and social science devotees of 'truth is unknowable persuasion' would, justifiably scream bloody murder.Pauci leones (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good but I would add to the bolded sentence at the end, "to reach specific, or larger audiences." It's pretty clear what to do with a narrow request but people should be able to find what to do with a widely targeted request more readily. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I know that "core policies" was brought up this time, but I think it would likely be claimed beyond that. I could see the same arguments being made for WP:N if there was a fundamental change to it even though its a guideline.∞陣内Jinnai 16:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've refactored to attempt to address both comments, any suggestions? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We can't push for an unqualified minimum of 30 days, because people never want major policy RFCs to stay open if it's obvious early on that the proposal is doomed. (This happens a lot more than RFCs on changes to advice pages that have any hope of success.)

Also, if we're going to make suggestions about advertising RFCs, we really need to point people to CANVASS, and it would be preferable to point them to the official policy on changing policies and guidelines than to WP:Publicising discussions. I do not think this is necessary at all, but I would definitely not include advice about advertising in the list of "directions", because (no matter how you phrase it) listing it as "Step 3" will make some people think it is a necessary step. It might be acceptable to create a separate section on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the point about canvassing is well taken, I'd added a bit about that. I'm not concerned where this appears, a separate section would be fine with me. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a variant of the above proposal as a subsection, I've tried to word it appropriately. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to close a couple of RFCs

There are two RFCs at Talk: Ugg boots. I'd appreciate it if a previously uninvolved admin would formally close both of them, since both have been posted more than 30 days, the page is a battleground and there's been no request for an extension. The first was an effort to remove the "Concerns about quality" section, by User:Bilby. At first it appeared that he might get consensus, but some later arrivals defeated that proposal. I suggest a finding of "no consensus."

The second, by User:WLRoss, was an attempt to remove counterfeiting cases from the article. First, it doesn't appear that he obtained consensus either; and second, the RFC was never properly filed, so it would be hard for any uninvolved editors to even find out about it. Either one of these rationales is sufficient to close the RFC with a finding of "no consensus." Thanks -- Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooops I've messed up. Help !! Two instances of the same RFC

1) [21]

2) This one not needed [22] ... talknic (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

NUDGE - do I simply delete the unwanted? ... talknic (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thx ... talknic (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

MMMM removed [23] and it removed the other/both . Restored ... talknic (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I did the right thing there ... talknic (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be fine now. At a guess, I'd say that your removal of the unwanted one might have coincided with someone else's removal of the wanted one, and so it just happened to look like your change took out both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it appears to have been something of that nature

Resolved

... talknic (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What is proper procedure when RfC result is ignored?

The situation is that an article content dispute was put to RfC, a resolution was reached and implemented, and the article has been stable in that form for several months. It has now been changed by one editor who is apparently dissatisfied with the course of editing on a different article (that he sees as analogous) and who, in consequence, has apparently decided that the entire RfC is now inapplicable.

The RfC process doesn't produce content that's cast in stone, and consensus can always be revisited. Nevertheless, it seems to me that good-faith editing requires that the outcome of the process be given at least some weight. No one editor can unilaterally decide that it should be ignored, at least when there's been no change in the underlying facts about the article subject.

I'm trying to reason with this editor on the article talk page, but I'm very pessimistic about getting anywhere.

I'm not linking because I don't want to start a thread here about a particular edit dispute. I'm looking for more general guidance about the RfC process -- specifically, what happens after the RfC is done. Starting another RfC to complain about the disregarding of the first RfC would seem to put us in an Achilles and the tortoise situation. JamesMLane t c 18:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring is such a harsh term. One RfC was done in tandom with another similar article, or at least much of the discussion between the two were related. One organization is run and was started by a liberal. The other organization was started by a conservative. The primary purpose of both organizations has little to do with their political points of view, and both proceed to WP:LABEL thenselves as non-partisan in their primary activities. Unfortunately the organization started by a conservatives had a few editors that insisted in trying to frame the organization as a conservative organization, while some of the same editors had a problem using the same rational to frame the organization started by a liberal as such under the rational of undue weight and NPOV. An uneasy truce emerged such that both were stated as non-partisan with the ideology of the founders stated, hence the source of the RfC. Over time the descriptors from the organization started by the liberal have been wiped clean under the previous statements of undue and npov. The agreement for the RfC was broken on the otherside. Similar organizations should be similarly identified so as to not give the impression that WP is biased to one particular ideolgy, a difficult task to say the least. James' analogy is more appropriate for the other article. An agreement was reached, and then over time modified to remove the liberal nature of the founder of the organization, and he is now upset that the same thing has been done to the other organization. Arzel (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Arzel's arguments in the RfC turned in part on his opinions about the other article, as to which there was no RfC. He's certainly entitled to draw an analogy but the RfC was about only the article it referenced.

2. Arzel considers the disputed content about the two websites to be substantially identical. I strongly disagree, as I've explained on the relevant talk page, and I won't rehash that here, where the issue is post-RfC procedure.

3. Arzel's position, per the last sentence of his comment, amounts to saying: "After a resolved RfC about Article #1, someone made an edit to Article #2 that I think was wrong. Nevertheless, I won't edit Article #2, I won't edit its talk page, and I won't start a thread on the Article #1 talk page asking that the RfC be revisited. Instead, I'll just unilaterally declare that the RfC on Article #1 is now null and void." The issue for this thread is whether that's a proper approach to the RfC process. I think it is not. JamesMLane t c 21:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

• The RFC at Article #1 does not give you any information about what should be done at Article #2. Therefore, if the editors at Article #1 agree not to mention ____ in Article #1, those very editors are still perfectly free to go mention exactly ____ at Article #2. Actions taken at Article #2 never violate or break or invalidate the agreement about what to include at Article #1.
• You don't get to declare the Article #1 agreement to be "broken" or to retaliate for people adding ____ to Article #2 by adding the agreed-to-be-omitted-from-#1 material ____ to Article #1. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for the general concept.
• If it's been long enough since the RFC agreement that you think the consensus might have changed at Article #1, or if someone has new reasons (ideally, reasons that won't make him look idiotic, which "someone added similar information to another article, and I believe that we should make both articles be equally bad" would), and general discussions on the talk page don't resolve them, then you can have a second (or third, or twenty-seventh, or whatever) RFC on the point at Article #1. The results of that RFC will only apply to Article #1.
• If you believe that Article #2 needs improvement, then Article #2 is equipped with its very own talk page, and you can start normal discussions, or (if those fail to resolve the question) an RFC about Article #2 and make a new, separate, independent decision about what's best for Article #2 (not Article #1) right there on Article #2's very own talk page.

None of this is rocket science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)