Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

RFC/U for Arzel

There is currently community support for a topic ban for user:Arzel, here. During the topic ban discussion it was suggested that RFC/U might be a good idea. The main issue, editing for the tea party movement, became an WP:Arbitration case. During the workshop, it was also suggest that RFC:/U might be a good idea, here. However, while I have engaged him on his talk page, I can't think of an issue in which another editor has engaged with me on an issue. Therefore, I don't think I can meet the minimum standards to file a dispute. However, since there is community support for a ban and because it was suggested this might be a good option, is there anyway to do a RFC/U on user:Arzel without meeting the standard.Casprings (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a retaliation for this. Arzel (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are the only person who has ever tried to resolve your dispute with Arzel, then you may not start an RFC/U. Your only options are to give up, or to recruit a third editor who is willing to resolve the dispute.

The point is to get disputes resolved, not to have RFC/U's. We have this rule because involving someone else often results in the dispute getting resolved between the three of you, rather than wasting a dozen (or more) people's time on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Question re RfC on main page issues.

Should a clarifying statement be added here (or somewhere) to the effect of:

• "RfC's should not [or: may not] be initiated regarding items proposed to appear on the Main Page. Instead, the various processes for deciding Main Page content (WP:TFA, WP:DYK, WP:SA, WP:ITN, and WP:POTD) are the controlling and final authorities for Main Page content."

There're some reasons for adding this as a clarification, three I can think of being:

• This certainly does apply to the Featured Article (WP:TFA says "The articles appearing on the main page are scheduled by Raul654", period, and as a practical matter this is true (and this has certainly worked well 99+% of the time). This isn't specified so clearly for the other parts of the Main Page, but maybe it should be.
• The other Main Page entities have a process for filling their allotted section of the main page. For instance DYK has a process for vetting their suggested articles, moving them through a queue in various steps, and comment is permitted. Since that's so, RfC's would be superfluous.
• And there is an open RfC on a main page entity, which I opened, and a number of editors are of the position "This is not allowed". It's not disallowed as far as I know at this time, but maybe it should be, and if so here might be a good place to make that clear.

For my part, I think that adding the text suggested above is an absolutely horrid idea, for a number or reasons, but I may be in a tiny minority. I could expand on this quite a but, but in a nutshell: basically, all these processes work well 99+% of the time, but the the processes have limitations and the people who run them (and work diligently and competently to do so) aren't perfect. I'm not too keen on establishing the principal "Content of X is decided by the (relatively few) people who have an interest in it, using specific narrow criteria; decisions are final, and the input of the wider community is not welcome". If for "X" you substitute "articles" or "policies" that'd not be too good, I don't think.

However, substituting "Main Page content" for "X" may change the equation; a number of editors do think that, and if that's the general consensus we should make this clear, I think. Is there such a general consensus, and should we add a passage to this effect? Herostratus (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur that it's a horrible idea. No subcommunity should have "veto" rights over the community at large. NE Ent 10:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What if these subcommunities actually want to solicit outside opinions on an item? Why should we ban them from using the RFC system to advertise their question? If I were adding a statement, it would be that RFCs on Main Page content are permitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the underlying issue behind the question... Are article level editors disagreeing with main page editors on the factual content? Are editors simply disagreeing over where to hold a discussion (a procedural question as to the "correct" process page for discussing main page content)? Or is there something else going on? Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

See WT:DYK#RfC: Should a DYK for Wikipediocracy be published? for background. Basically, Herostratus initiated an RfC on whether an article should appear at DYK, and attempted to close the ongoing DYK discussion on the basis that the RFC superseded it. Most of the subsequent discussion at the RFC was about whether this was an appropriate move. Hence this attempt to clarify the guidelines. For my part, I think these circumstances are pretty unique, and it's not worth specifically forbidding something that probably won't happen again anyway. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. I wanted to cap that DYK discussion because I didn't want to have two concurrent discussions (the RfC and the DYK discussions) both of which are claimed to be the controlling discussion -- that is, both discussions ongoing with the understanding of their participants that however that discussion is closed will decide the matter. I didn't fight about that, so that's the situation now, which seems unsatisfactory, like having two concurrent AfD's on the same article. The vibe I'm getting from the DYK folks (politely) is sort of "This has never happened before and we've never considered what to do in this case, but our inclination is to ignore the RfC and publish the item if it passes our process." This worries me.

I don't agree that this won't come up again. Awhile back the Today's Featured Article folks published an article (about the human caterpillar thingy) which several people didn't want, and Jimbo said something like "It's not a good choice and I'd rather they didn't do that, but there's nothing we can do." That didn't feel right to me and still doesn't, and this sort of thing may come up once or twice a year. I do believe that most or maybe all of these RfC's would pass these items to be published on the main page, though (we're pretty liberal here). Herostratus (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Not that I think RfC's should be discouraged, but given the exact circumstances of you using an RfC to block a main page appearance by a group you dislike, I do not believe we should encourage such RfC's on individual items either. Discussion should occur at the nomination page itself unless it involves multiple items. Plenty of DYK noms see significant discussion from multiple editors on the relevant page that allows for sorting out how to proceed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see disagreement with that policy, but I am assuming that it is the policy, and so am reverting your deletion of the section on the policy page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I request a [{WP:3O]] as to whether the twice-deleted section does reflect current actual practice and so should be restored. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

An editor is attempting to backstop a rather blatant attempt to shut down a main page nom for a group he plainly admits that he does not like. Not only will such an allowance in the policy be abused, its very roots are in the abuse of the RfC process. This is not a valid case for 3O, BTW.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate, relax, willya? Yeah I don't like Wikipediocracy, but so what? Of course it's a blatant attempt to shut down a main page nom. Would you prefer covert attempt? What am I supposed to do, sit here and yell at my screen? It's a wiki. I'm permitted to make legitimate, good-faith moves to improve the Wikipedia if they're backed by cogent argument. So're you. There's no need to get upset, this is how we work things through here. I added the section, based on no objection to that point, as is my right, and you removed, as if your right, and we'll move on from there (specifically, here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RfC on validity of RfC on main page items). It's all on the up-and-up. There're a lot of reasons for my opposing the Wikipediocracy RfC, and not liking them is not a big part. A much bigger part is not wanting to drive traffic to their website, which is perfectly legitimate reason to oppose. You should oppose it too, cos they suck.

But I also think that main page RfC should be allowed, and have been mooting this for some time, ever since the -- what was it, human centipede thingy. Do Not Want, and especially didn't like the whole "We'll publish whatever we please, and the editor community can go pound sand" response I got about that. I favor a conservative, friendly, anodyne main page (others don't, of course) and so also don't want midget porn and whatever featured on the main page and I don't want to see the main page on the evening news. If before it is, I want to be damn sure that the community wants that. If they do, fine. Herostratus (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(N.B. for some reason the following, which was written earlier than much of the above, got pushed down here.) Herostratus (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC) I haven't seen any support for the proposed wording, in fact the opposite. What I'm going to do is add a section "RfC on main page items" consisting of the single sentence "Publication of main page items (such as 'today's featured article') is suspended while a valid RfC on the item is open." Hopefully this will be OK, but of course any editor can undo that, and then we can discuss that. This sentence would serve two purposes: by clear inference it indicates that RfC's on main page item are OK, and says how to handle their publication. Herostratus (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Closing RfCs

The rules for closing RfCs seem rather vague to me and also quite unlike any formal process used in the civilised world.

The closer is supposed not to count votes but to weigh up the strength of argument on each side and make a decision. Often the closer is an admin but not always so and, in any case, admins are not deemed to have superior reasoning powers to other editors. In all civilised cultures, decisions are made by two basic means:

Voting

Many decisions are made by the democratic process of voting. The principle here is quite simple, everybody gets a vote, even the stupid, ill-informed, and malevolent. In many case a simple majority wins and sometimes a supermajority is required.

Courts

In a court (or a panel, tribunal, etc) a decision is made my a person, or a group of people, on the weight of argument presented by both sides, however, the judge, or panel members (criminal juries are a little different) are chosen because they are selected by some process to have the knowledge and skills to make an unbiased decision on the evidence and arguments presented.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia, on the other has a process in which an, essentially random, individual is supposed to weight up the arguments on both sides, assess consensus, and take some notice of the number of supporters for each option, without it actually being a vote. In the end, the only thing that actually counts is mob rule. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of closing process

Well, I would disagree with your characterization, as it ignores the amount of effort and care with which closures are made. In fact, I would argue that, in comparison to voting and the courts, Wikipedia closures are the furthest from mob rule. The key, I think, is getting out of a legalistic mental framework. The goal of a closure is to assess the judgement of the community in regards to the matter at hand. If you were to simply count votes on the discussion page, you would completely ignore the hundreds of comments and votes of previous editors who helped to draft applicable policy. Having appointed judges, on the other hand, is an overly formal and bureaucratic process, especially considering that wikipedia policy is not law, and there is no responsibility of closers to know every policy in existence, only to explore the applicability of those which have been cited in the given matter. Just like policy, closures are subject to review by the community at large, but reviews are still incredibly rare, especially considering the contentious nature of many RfCs. So if you disagree with a particular closure, go to WP:AN and ask for a closure review. But it's not really very productive to malign the whole process while you are at it. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 18:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I mention courts and votes because they seem to be the ways that most cultures have found of resolving disputes. I am not necessarily against another way if it works. You say, 'it ignores the amount of effort and care with which closures are made'. I do not see how the effort put in is that relevant if there is no clear basis on which the decision is to be made. The close is generally a passing admin who decides the issue in some unknown way, usually with a short explanation. Perhaps you could tell me, how exactly should a decision be made when closing and RfC? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I check out WP:ANRFC on a fairly regular basis. My policy is to read through RfCs that I think I might be able to work on. About half the time, I find that my experience is not sufficient to close that discussion, and leave without note. It is only when I believe that I truly understand the point of conflict and where each of the contributing editors are coming from that I will start the close. I read every policy cited, and often search in the talk page archives for where specific points of policy were discussed - there are some elements of policy that just kind of get there and are never actually agreed upon, so the new RfC may actually have more to say about a policy than the actual policy page does.

It's only after I know the particular policy and its basis, and can see what it does and does not apply to, that I will then go through and reread the RfC, this time focusing on which editors are trying to pick and choose policy to support their position, and which editors are trying to apply policy as best they can to the particular situation. If one side is clearly on the side of applying policy objectively, and others aren't, then I just cite the applicable policy and how it applies to the given subject. If, on the other hand, there are multiple perspectives that truly are trying to apply policy, but different policies (or different applications of a single policy) are resulting in a conflict, I will then start counting up the !votes, and see which way people want to apply conflicting policy in regards to the subject of the RfC.

On average, I will spend 30-45 minutes on a close, and anywhere from 15 minutes to over an hour on one where I cannot get my head around all of the ways policy could apply to the RfC. I have good reason to believe that many of the regulars at ANRFC are similarly inclined to approach complex closures with a similar amount of studiousness and care. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the lack of bureaucratic requirements (I believe you've called that "vagueness") is a strength. First of all, most RFCs do not need and do not receive a formal "closure". Second, if a formal closure is requested, then there is no requirement that an admin undertake the task. Anyone who can give a thoughtful WP:Third opinion is probably up to the task of closing RFCs.

As for how it's done, there is substantial variation in the process, and this is necessary because there is substantial variation in the types of questions. An article RFC requires consideration of how the various comments relate to existing policies. An RFC about whether or not a given proposal should be our policy generally does not. (There simply are no policies that tell us what our policy should be for the percentage of votes that is required to pass an RFA.) Some questions are binary (shall we use WP:Pending changes or not? You can't have it turned on halfway) and some have a nearly infinite number of variations possible (most RFCs on how to describe an event). It's complicated, and so we are not trying to define it. Go close a dozen RFCs, and you'll understand it better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies, I may possibly try to conduct a survey on how RfCs are closed. I think both your responses are too idealistic, no doubt you and many others use wise and well thought out principles when closing RfCs but there is no guarantee that this will always happen. In my opinion, borne out by the dispute resolution methods used in nearly all civilised societies, there should either be a straight vote or the closer(s) should be specially selected in some way for their wisdom and ability to fairly close RfCs. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, also realize that I am describing a particular kind of formal close, where you have a heated and complex problem without a clear-cut solution. A lot of RfCs - these are the ones that show up at ANRFC and get closed within a few hours - are small, simple, contained, and have a clear consensus, but just need a formal close for the imprimatur of an official result. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 16:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

RFCs are closed based on "consensus"... the problem is that, as a community, we have never completely agreed on what "consensus" actually means... or how it is "determined". There are those who think consensus should be determined by voting (whether it be simple majority, a 2/3 supermajority, or some other tally system)... others want it determined by admin fiat (where an admin reads the discussion - and determines who made the best policy based arguments)... still others think consensus is an evolutionary process... focusing on making compromises until a consensus is "achieved" (ie consensus is not "determined" by anyone ... it simply occurs... everyone gets some of what they want, but not all of what they want... and everyone is satisfied enough to end the discussion). The reality is that all three ways of determining consensus can and do work... but which method will work is different from one RFC to another. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a good description of what actually happens. The last process is probably the best but there is no guarantee that it will always happen. The question is, what happens when a consensus in not reached naturally. In the end we come down to the two processes that I have described voting and courts, or as it may turn out admin fiat. The questions remain as to which of these two processes will actually occur for any given RfC and whether admin fiat is an acceptable version of what I call a 'court'.

There certainly are occasions where the decision of some external agency is required, and often requested by some of those involved. The problem is that there is no official body to make such decisions. ArbCom have decided that they will not decide in matters of content. At the moment any passing admin, or in fact, any passing user can close an RfC.

In my opinion, there should be some policy on when an RfC which has not reached a natural consensus should be decided by vote and when it should be closed by an external decision, and in those latter cases who should make that decision. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm wondering what is so confusing to you about WP:Consensus. We have an entire policy on what consensus is, and how to apply it. This is an incredibly stable, broadly implemented foundation upon which almost all conflict resolution in Wikipedia is based, whether as a third opinion, RfC, or mediation. Did you just not read it? Bare votes are never supposed to be taken in content disputes, and you will see RfCs that are closed as no consensus because there wasn't any discussion, just a simple vote. Unlike you characterization of closures being by fiat, all closures have to be based on the actual discussion, or they will never survive even a cursory closure review. So what's the problem? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 19:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

VanIsaac, I'm not sure who this commented is directed towards. (You might want to see who's active at WT:CONSENSUS.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I was specifically referring to cases where a consensus cannot be reached. Of course, we always try to reach a consensus but sometimes it just does not happen. I am asking what then happens. It seems that some closers take in the role of a court in that they try to decide which argument best represents WP policy and then close that way. That seems wrong to me, however well intentioned. There is no society where a decision of this nature is made by a single passer-by or even experienced volunteer who has not undergone some kind of selection process.

What actually happens, generally good things on WP. But I have been blocked from adding sourced information at the US country-article. The USG now defines itself by law geographically to include modern territories with US citizens and nationals since 1985. Law is cited, court cases, secondary government and scholarly sources. I was backed up by another editor, the administrator agreed to the edit, it had been in the article before, then he deleted it without sources, requiring a “consensus” and my first changing all subsidiary articles. RfCs at political science and geography had no response for 20 days and then were deleted. On the page, 1-4 became 2-4. Third party said when WP is wrong, little damage is done. I took the issue to Mediation and the count swung to 4-3, an opponent went to dispute resolution. At language agreed to or “second choice” 8-1 include territories went to the article.

The administrator reverted the DR language in March using my October phrasing without discussion. Challenged by the one dissenter at dispute resolution, he removed the territories, saying he put it in, he could take it out. Leaving out the territories is his consensus, standing for months before my sourced challenge, he is in charge. But no source says, “modern US territories are not a part of the US”. My attempt to restore the DR was met by the lone dissenter successfully having me blocked from not just the article, but all of WP. Is this WP:tag team? I appealed showing the administrator had reverted DR language seven times, and my iterations were to restore previous DR, the block was upheld. The administrator claims no consensus, because his previous language lasted longer than the DRs - non-sequiturs are not sources. I am shortening my posts and tightening my argument even as I read more deeply into Law Journals and monographs. Is there really another step for me to take? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not at all familiar with the case that you quote but that is exactly the kind of thing that I am talking about. If an outrageous decision is made by an RfC closer, usually an admin, there is actually very little that can be done about it. Arbcom are not interested and there is no other appeal body. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. WP:Closure review is one of the functions of WP:AN. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 19:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that is much of an answer. The review process is even less well defined that the closing process. There is also a general reluctance to reverse the action of admins. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

So let's bulk it up and define the process more explicitly. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 21:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:TheVirginiaHistorian misunderstands the action that was taken. He or she was blocked from editing for 24 hours for edit-warring. The block has expired. He or she was not topic-banned from editing the article. Topic-bans are not imposed by an administrator, but only by the ArbCom. It appears to be all right to restore the consensus version of the article if edit-warring is avoided. What article is it? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Challenging a closing

This is a discussion for expanding the description of the closure review process at WP:Closing discussions#Challenging a closing.

There is no procedure for this process. It is hard to see how there can be one as there is no agreed procedure for a close. This is the point of this discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure there is: "you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard"; it's just incredibly unhelpful. I think that AN: Review of RFC closure probably has a good amount of discussion about the bases for review that would be good to put in here. Specifically, it seems like we can say that 1) a closure cannot be reviewed on the basis that it is a non-admin close. 2) a closure can be reviewed on the basis that the close constitutes a WP:Supervote: that the closer conflated the personal persuasiveness of arguments with their validity. Validity is solely about whether a policy application is consistent with that policy and how it has been applied previously, and not whether it is more or less convincing to the closer. 3) a closure can be reviewed on the basis of being an unreasonable summation of the discussion. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Current wording

For challenging a deletion discussion close, there is a process called Deletion review, while for page move discussions, the process is called Move review.

For other procedures, whether formal RFCs or less formal ones such as merging, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.

Proposed changes and discussion

• I would like to have separate subsections for deletion review/REFUND, move review, and closure review that specifically describes the basics of each process. Since WP:AN is a general noticeboard, we should have full instructions for a closure review, including a template that formats the review request, like Template:Mrv2 does at WP:Move review. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 21:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Why are we even discussing this here? If you want to change WP:Closing discussions#Challenging a closing, then go to that talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposals? (vs. "All"?)

The page says "A list of all current RfCs can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All". But there are evidently also "proposals" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. What's up with those? Should this page link to them, too? —Steve Summit (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:RFCUlist

{{RFCUlist}} currently links to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel, which was closed a week ago. Any reason that it should remain on the template? Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: WP:AURDNAME as a guideline

I would like to invite the editors here to comment on a proposal to promote WP:AURDNAME (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads) to guideline status. Please visit the WP:AURDNAME talkpage and discuss.

-- Nbound (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You might like to read WP:PROPOSAL for ideas about other ways to advertise this discussion, if you haven't already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

All good has been posted on: WP:AURD, WP:HWY, WP:RFC , and WP:AT via their talk pages; as well as posting on both WP:VPP and WP:VPR (Village Pump Pages) -- Nbound (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on validity of RfC on main page items

Proposed, to add a section to the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the section to be titled "RfC on main page items" and the content to consist of the sentence "Publication of a main page item (such as 'today's featured article') is suspended while a valid RfC on the item is open".

The intent and probable effect of this addition is twofold:

1. To establish, by clear inference, that RfC on main page items are indeed permitted and operative.
2. To specify how main page items are to be handled in these cases.

Survey

• Neutral Oppose. Herostratus' wall-of-text below has convinced me that RfCs and DYK noms are very different types of discussion, so his suspending one discussion to open another wasn't (or shouldn't have been) as counter-productive as it first appeared to me. That said, I don't think it's an ideal situation, and shouldn't be explicitly endorsed by the guidelines (per WP:BEANS). And given that, as far as I'm aware, there's only ever been one such RfC in the history of Wikipedia, the proposed rule doesn't seem necessary at this point. These RfCs ought to be sufficiently rare that the validity of each can be discussed individually. So, in short, I'm voting for status quo – RfCs on main page items should be neither explicitly allowed nor forbidden.DoctorKubla (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, argh. "RfCs on main page items should be neither explicitly allowed nor forbidden" devolves to "Each RfC on a main page item should be a subject of, in addition to (or instead of) discussion of the merits of the case, a lengthy, acrimonious, and fruitless argument over the meta-issue of whether the RfC is allowed, with the final result probably being decided by somebody just publishing the item." I do not like these kind of votes. We need to settle this now, and I'd much prefer if you just voted "No". Herostratus (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I doubt the meta-discussion in question would have been quite so acrimonious if Wikipediocracy hadn't been involved. And I don't believe we do need to settle this now; if it becomes a recurring problem, then I'd be more open to discussing it. (By the by, the reason I voted "Neutral", rather than "Oppose", even though I am technically opposing the proposal, was to make it clear that I wouldn't support a proposal to forbid RfCs either – in retrospect, that is kinda confusing, though.) DoctorKubla (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per my wall-of-text below. Of course RfC can be useful in the rare contentious cases where they're called for. RfC are a really important and useful tool, and the main page is important! I think that almost all main items would be passed by RfC (we have pretty easygoing community here), but it's much much better if people have their say and lose their point fair and square. This is how you build and grow a thriving volunteer organization: give the volunteers a fair voice in a venue where their voice is actually counted. Herostratus (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with some points made by Herostratus below and I think this page should mention that RfCs on mainpage posting are valid. However, I think blocking mainpage items for one month is an overkill for ITN and OTD as it means the item won't get posted regardless of the RfC outcome. The way I see it is the background issue this RfC is coming from is extremely rare, but the side effects are more common leading to a net negative. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Issues involving multiple items such as April Fool's and Gibraltarpedia are legitimate subjects for RfCs, but doing it on individual items is excessive and should not be encouraged in any way. We have the nomination page itself and that should suffice. Plenty of main page items see active and broad participation on the nomination page, especially the contentious ones. Sometimes the discussion leads to an item being declined and sometimes it leads to compromise measures. That is how it should be done.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, essentially per TDA above. Otherwise we have RFCs used as filibusters (as is happening here, now) and that, in my opinion, is against all that Wikipedia stands for. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. No evidence or examples are provided to demonstrate a need for this. Warden (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• I wouldn't object to a statement that RFCs may be held on Main Page items, but I don't like the idea that I can block any Main Page proposal simply by filing an RFC and insisting that I'm asking a legitimate question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was neutral until reading WhatamIdoing's statement — there's no way that you should be able to use an RFC to block something that's time-dependent, whether DYK, ITN, or OTD. Consensus is important, but allowing a big discussion to get in the way of progress is why we have WP:BURO. Nyttend (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per the comments above by WhatamIdoing and The Devil's Advocate. Too bureaucratic, and most importantly, we already have a process for selecting what appears on the main page anyway, so if any problems come up there, then should be the time to address those problems. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, mainly per WhatamIdoing. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Warden and WhatamIdoing. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 19:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. It should be obvious that if the community is in disagreement over the validity of something to go into the *main page* then the discussion it should be given the importance it deserves, and we should not publish on the top visible page anything we are not reasonably sure we 'all' want there. Abuses of process exist everywhere, including processes to get content _into_ the main page. We do not remove all process for that reason, if the process gets abused then the abusers, and the process, should be reviewed. - Nabla (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Completely unneeded. Main page items get a lot of exposure and there really is nothing wrong with readers discovering that editors sometimes discuss things. Apteva (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone. Crisco's use of the term filibuster is quite appropriate; the main effect of this rule change would merely allow people to disrupt timely main page processes by filing vexatious RFCs. --Jayron32 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Warden and Herostratus. Nominator needs to provide examples (the fact that the main page is under discussion does not apply here). I agree that the RfC process is not necessarily indicative of a critical problem in an article. It's true there are probably some articles or other front page content that have RfCs, and are not appropriate for the front page, but I don't think we need a blanket rule about it. I believe the existing mechanisms through DYK and FA would be able to address these issues. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WhatamIdoing and Warden. I was going to write a view somewhat familiar to WhatamIdoing myself before I saw that he had already written it. - Jayadevp13 17:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary bureaucracy. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

N.B.: there is a bit of earlier discussion above: #Question re RfC on main page issues. Herostratus (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What's a "valid RfC"? and could you clarify the point about suspending main page postings? Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, there are currently at least 3 RfCs running on main page items [1], [2], [3]. All three of them are currently advertised in WP:CD. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh OK. But those are on general main page issues, not main page items. We're talking here about individual featured articles, DYK's, and so on. All I know is I got some pushback when I RfC'd an individual main page item, and it's not at all clear that that is something universally accepted. In fact, when I just added the proposed text to this article, some editor or editors objected and remove it. That is why we are here.

As to your other questions, a valid RfC is an RfC. All RfC are valid, by default. But exceptions could be made for RfC used for trolling or disruption or to make a joke or something like that. If someone opened RfC on every main page item just to disrupt the main page, for instance, those would not be valid, and shouldn't affect publication (and anyway would simply be deleted by the first normal person to come along). I just added the word "valid" to leave an "out" in case of joke RfC and so forth.

What is unclear about suspending main page posting? It means that the item won't be published while the RfC is open and undecided. Is this not clear? Anyone else having a problem with the wording? The wording isn't important. Once the principle is established, any editor can later change it to "Items shall not be published on the main page while there is a valid open RfC on whether they should be published" or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand you. Wouldn't it be better in your opinion if each individual item was discussed in its place as done currently? You know, hooks for DYK go through a review system, blurbs for ITN are !voted on, there's a director who has delegates for TFA etc. There is also a page for mainpage errors. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, not after a certain point. Of course, the main page folks do fine work, and we all appreciate their competence and diligence. Of course, 99+% of the time everything works fine. However, the internal processes of the main page folks become strained when contentious issues arise. In those cases, the larger community can help out with a broader discussion. There's nothing in this proposal that is against the main page folks. RfC are helpful.

There're five elements to the main page (I think): This Day in History, In the News, Featured Article, Featured Picture, and DYK (Did You Know). The first two I know nothing about (but can't think of any reason they couldn't benefit from RfC if the need arose). The other three are worth discussing. I'll start with DYK.

The DYK process works great, but it heavily oriented toward vetting on technical issues (Is the article really new? Is the "hook" the right length? Does the article have an acceptable number of references? and so forth.)

Here're some examples of issues that could be asked about DYK nominations. These are made up, but there have been (very occasionally) DYK noms where questions like these have come up:

• "This article about some aspect of pornography contains actual pornography. This may be fine for the article, but do we want to feature it on the main page?"
• "This article about a website was essentially written by a paid agent of the website and the DYK proposed by same. The article isn't exactly overtly promotional and deserves to exist, but featuring it on the main page will perforce drive traffic to that website. Is this a good use of DYK?"
• "This DYK would be the fifth DYK this month about some aspect of Pinckney Pruddle's Perfect Peaches. Isn't that maybe a bit much?
• "This article was written by an editor who, in other contexts, has written that he 'Hates the Wikipedia and prays for its destruction' and who sleuthed out and published the home address of another Wikipedia editor, who was then attacked and eaten by wild dogs. Given that DYK exists primarily to reward and encourage editors, is this an editor that we want to reward and encourage?"
• "This DYK nomination is, for whatever reason, pretty contentious and it looks like a number of editors will be upset if it's published. Does that matter?"

And so forth. The vibe I'm getting from the DYK discussion I'm involved in is that at least a significant subset of the folks who handle DYK vetting don't think its proper to even consider issues like this; if the nomination meets DYK's internal standards, it is published, period.

I don't think that's right. There's a big difference between having an article exist and featuring it on the main page, and there ought to be different standards. I'm OK with all of the examples shown being published if the larger community so decides. We all have a stake in the main page and at the margins, when there's a contentious or problematical DYK nomination, ought to be able to have our say in the most appropriate venue. RfC is a much better venue for community decisions than the DYK vetting process. Some of the advantages an RfC has over the regular DYK vetting are:

• RfC are more widely advertised and so more likely to have a larger number of participants.
• RfC are more likely to attract editors who are not DYK regulars, which for a contentious proposal is a good thing I would say.
• RfC runs for a month, which is probably appropriate for a contentious question. That gives sufficient time for people to engage in extensive dialog, form and consider nuanced opinions, ponder other editors opinions, and so on. Regular DYK discussions are usually shorter, with an emphasis on fixing any technical problems with the proposed entry and pushing it forward in the queue.
• RfC are set up specifically to handle contentious issues, and are well constructed to answer single questions such as "Should this be published, or not?" They typically have Survey and Threaded Discussion sections and fairly easily handle moving material when various issues become intertwined. DYK vetting pages aren't. They often revolve around discussions of the hook, with ALT1 and ALT2 (alternate hooks) presented for discussion, and it's not quite as easy to interweave consideration of other matters or to get a heacount if scores of editors are involve. This is a matter of degree.
• Complicated DYK vetting discussions are kind of confusing for civilians. The last one I was in, the DYK was moved to the publishing prep queue in the middle of the discussion, with no decision having been made or announced; someone just did it, which I guess is how the DYK system works, and I'm sure it works for the 99+% of nominations which are uncontentious, but you sure won't find that happening in an RfC.
• Finally, and importantly, DYK vetting discussions are closed by DYK specialists. RfC are closed by generalists. They're experienced in considering all aspects of the case, even those which transcend those normally considered in DYK vetting, and generally for large RfC there's a tradition and expectation of summarizing the various arguments, addressing the headcount, and giving the reasoning behind the decision (usually with reference to Wikipedia policies, and sometimes the overall interests of the Wikipedia). As far as I know this is not usually done for DYK vetting discussions.

Hope this helps. TFA (Today's Featured Article) is different, but in a very broad sense has some of the limitations described above for DYK. Yes I understand that TFA has a director and deputies, but I'm confident that there are times when they would welcome and benefit from the assistance of the community on a knotty issue. Today's Featured Picture is quite different, and quite interesting, but ought also to be subject to RfC I think. I'm prepared to discuss these in a bit more detail if requested, but I see that my teletype is running out of ink.

I just want to reiterate: we all appreciate the work of the main page folks, a lot. There's nothing even remotely punitive or negative about RfC. RfC are to help and many is the time I've found RfC helpful, even when I "lost" my point. The community is, in aggregate, smart, kind, and thoughtful. Maybe there's something one didn't think of! That is what RfC is for. (But OK: it's human nature to not want a boss superseding one's normal decision-making prerogatives, so I could understand if there's some resentment from some main page regulars on this issue. But what can I say? Most of us have a boss, and a good thing too, when there's a tough issue on the table. The boss here is the larger Wikipedia community of editors.) Herostratus (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

To User:Mohamed CJ's point in the Survey section above that RfC's against ITN ("In The News") items would kill those items is good. While we want to be succinct, a proscription against RfC on ITN would be called for as addition to the text, I suppose. (Of all the main page items, "In The News" is probably least likely to generate controversy though, I think.) "This Date in History" (also not a nexus of controversy), RfC are probably not so much of a deal-killer since the date comes around again in a year.

I general, one thing I don't get is: what is the hurry that applies to main items but not to articles? Why is there a rush to get a main page item from nomination to publication? (Obviously ITN is time-dependent, and OTD is if you're not willing to wait a year, but not the featured article, featured picture, or the DYK entries (sure, they may appear on various anniversaries of things, but this is a distinctly minor consideration). We take our time getting articles right. That is why we have RfC on articles, and that mostly works OK. Doing things quickly is not really the forte of a large wiki like ours, and maybe we should consider not being in a super hurry on these matters.

I dunno, I'm seeing a lot of Oppose comments, and so be it, but if it continues to go that way folks should be clear about what is happening: the community giving away a fundamental right -- the right to consider main page content at length, in depth, in all aspectcs, and in no hurry -- and ceding that to the specialists who man the main page feature areas. That actually might be a good thing, but I'd be super cautious about that.

Also, note that adoption of the proposal would be centripetal (power moving from the edges (the individual main page processes) to the center (the community as a whole), while failure of the proposal would be centrifugal (power moving from the center (the larger community) to sub-centers. I don't know if that's good or not, but something to think about maybe. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest

Editors here may perhaps be interested in discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Should we add some guidance about non-admin closures?. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Protocol question

There is currently an RfC open about me (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb). While I have decided to not participate, as it's a spiteful sideshow that was started in bad faith, I have also promised to give serious pause to the good-faith comments that others have left. (See my comment here.) My concern is that the initiators of this spectacle are continually changing the RfC, adding and removing diffs to suit their likings. (Presumably adding diffs they feel will help their "case" as they find them, and removing diffs of which responders have been critical, thereby attempting to avoid any scrutiny of their own behaviors.) Is this normal? I thought that once an RfC went "live" it was to remain "as is" (except, of course, for "views" and "endorsements"). Note that I'm not claiming to be correct about that; I'm only seeking clarification. Thank you in advance. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. The certifiers of the RFC have indeed changed the diffs after the outside views were entered. This puts the outside view editors in the position of shooting at a moving target. This is improper. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do think Joe has a legitimate point here. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The behavior of the certifiers in changing the evidence on the fly makes it difficult to get a consensus on the behavior of the subject user, and the purpose of the RFC should be to get consensus, not simply to attack. I will note that the questionable conduct of the certifiers and the battleground behavior of the subject do not justify each other. As I noted in my outside view at the RFC, I suggest an interaction ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Another issue is User:Evanh2008's removal of an IP's endorsement with the summary: "block evasion, can't we just remove it". (And yes, the comment was supportive of me, but I would be every bit as opposed to its removal had it been critical of me, and if that IP is who I think it is, I really don't need support from anyone like that.) The IP was blocked by John a full day after that comment was made, and assuming it is the same person we all think it is, the block on the IP from which the user was previously editing has long expired. If Evan had a concern about block evasion, he should have raised it at the appropriate venue. He had no business removing anyone's comments, especially since he endorsed an opposing viewpoint. While the end-result is likely a net-positive, it illustrates what a problem this entire farce-of-an-RfC has become; multiple users doing as they please- adding, removing, changing. It's ridiculous. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Robert asked at VPP, and I replied there. Basically, it's handled the same as any other discussion-oriented page, which means that there's no prohibition on changing your comments. This is a good thing, because you want people to be able to back down from hyperbole or remove mistakes. However, just like other discussions, if you make changes that would cause confusion because someone replied to that part of your comment, then you should use strikeout formatting or some other method of preserving the sense of the discussion (even if it's just "removed inappropriate thing I said here") instead of simply removing it.

It sounds like the participants prefer to remove it. In that event, people writing those other views are free to restore copies into their own views, or otherwise explain the apparent mismatch in their own sections. Don't be tempted to "fix" their removal. Nobody at RFC/U is supposed to edit other people's comments, and that rule is enforced much more strictly than usual there. As for the IP, it sounds like it's not a big problem in the particular instance, but the smell test applies: don't remove comments supporting your opponents. Make some uninvolved admin address the concern, but keep your own hands clean. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the writer is not free to restore it, as he's blocked. He was not blocked at the time he wrote the comment. This is just an attempt at gaming. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I said from the beginning that I would have nothing to do with it, so my hands will remain spotless. And again, I'd really rather not have "supporters" like that IP; I'm just awed by the arrogance it takes to remove a comment from a live RfC on a whim. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that me nor the other nominator (who the IP went after) removed the IP's comment, and that characterizing it as a "whim" is mischaracterizing it. I believed that it should have been struck through instead. I just put it back, but struck through, because that's what you generally do for editors in his situation. The removed diffs are also back, struck through, even though a majority of editors seemed not to care one way or t'other pbp 22:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Putting it back and striking it is even worse than removing it; the IP was unblocked at the time he commented and the block on his old IP had expired- he had as much right as anyone else to comment. So, thank you PbP for striking it. You've provided yet more comedy at the little circus you've created. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Another discussion that may be of interest

Editors here may be interested in an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Clarification of the rules. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot malfunction relating to Talk:Sazerac Company

Please see the archived prior discussion of strange bot behavior relating to Talk:Sazerac Company in Archive 12. Now, aside from the bot's repeated deletion of the text field, I notice that the bot is continuing to include this topic in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies, even though the date on the RfC request was 29 March - which is more than two months ago. Shouldn't the bot have expired this item by now? (I welcome getting more comments, but this doesn't seem like the way the bot should be acting.) —BarrelProof (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Three weeks later, and Talk:Sazerac Company is still in the list at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That item is still stuck in the list. It's now been there for almost five months. Any advice? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the bot functioning? The bot hasn't updated Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies in 12 days. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Finally, it seems OK now. It looks like it was fixed by a bot change. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Getting listed in a new subject area

After the bot had added the RfC Talk:The_White_Queen_(TV_series)#Request_for_comment to the culture (and history) discussion boards, someone pointed out to me that there is more specific "Media" category which would be a better fit than culture. How would I get it listed in the Media space (and perhaps removed from culture)? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried just adding "media" to the existing tag -- not sure if the bot will pick that up or not. Maybe we have to remove the rfcid? NE Ent 19:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Normally, you just add it and wait about 15 minutes or so. The bot only runs a few times each hour. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Signature required/signature not required?

Hey friends, confused by one bit of info. In the RfC instructions Item 3 says to sign our RfC statements either with ~~~~ for name and date or ~~~~~ for date alone. Ostensibly this is to allow RfCs to be filed without the filer's name appearing. But, the text in the Example suggests that we have to sign with four tildes, was hoping one of the regulars here might clarify the instructions. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You may use whichever you believe is most appropriate, so long as a date appears (for the bot). Most people sign their own names (four tildes). However, if the wording of the RFC question is something that multiple editors have contributed to, then five tildes is preferable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Am I being ignored? Not to be rude of any sort.

I hope I am being being rude when asking this! Truly I do. But I have filed two requests for comments that no one has responded to. All that I am asking is if my requests are being ignored or not.

I apologize for any rudeness of any sort and I hop that I am not bothering anyone by doing this. Regards! :D Keeby101 (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Links to the two RfCs, please. I don't want to have to go searching through your edit history to try to find RfCs that may or may not have distinctive edit summaries. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 20:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All does not show your name. Links to the pages would be very helpful in figuring out what's gone wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are the links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board#Help_reach_consensus_on_the_Sasanian_Empire_Talk_Page_on_regards_to_a_new_map.21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board#Request_for_comments_on_Sasanian_Empire_talk_page_about_a_new_map.21

Keeby101 (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ahh. The issue is that these are not requests for comment yet. I've never been to that board before, and have aboslutely no idea how many people frequent that board, and hence how long it takes for a volunteer to get around to actually putting it in the right place. You can do this yourself by finding the appropriate wikiproject or article talk page for the RfC, and then follow the directions at {{rfc}} to properly start one. It's this template that actually gets an RfC listed and show up on people's talk pages through the WP:feedback request service. The reason why nobody has commented on these is that without the {{rfc}} template, absolutely nobody who doesn't watch that particular page has any idea they exist. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Value is a canonical form

I made a simple and fairly obvious change to the Value. The change says that a value is a Canonical form. The canonical form page almost says the same thing. In particular it talks about the canonical form of a natural number.

My change was rolled back as original research, which it is certainly not. But the matter is almost to trivial to be worth a mention in scholarly articles. Is it possible for some mathematical expert could review and verify the change.

Thepigdog (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone write an article about this guy?

He came and talked at my high school about entrepreneurship. He reminds me of Blake Mycoskie.

He recently drank dirty water in the USA to bring attention to the water crisis: http://myfoxhouston.com/story/24377190/2014/01/06/young-houstonian-drinks-dirty-water-raise-awareness

He is also the founder of Do Amore Rings, a social-enterprise that is giving a lot of money per purchase when compared to other social-enterprises. I don't mind being a contributor, but I don't know how to start an article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzhilton (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Delisted RfC

Can someone please formally close the RfC at Talk:Hungarian passport#RfC: Summary section style, recently de-listed. It was a red herring from the start and has long run its course. RashersTierney (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Please note Requests for Closure is usually the place to ask for a formal closure. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Noted. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Add RfC for education

How do I add {rfc|edu} for Education? Stmullin (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi,

I'd like to submit a RFC/U, but I am kinda afraid, because of all the politic stuff.

I'm concerned about the behaviour of a specific admin in a specific ANI case.

I'd like to put together the appropriate 'evidence' of their misconduct - but I don't quite know how to do it.

Perhaps someone can help me? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

How to do an RFC on a topic without an article?

Maybe I'm being incredibly dumb here but the instructions say to add the RFC template to the talk page of the article I want to discuss, but I want to discuss Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC, which doesn't seem to be an article, just a specific RFC page. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess just make the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Archive.is RFC. Herostratus (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Modification of a request for comments

Hi all. I posted a request for comments on Talk:Crowned Crane. Later, another user deleted one paragraph (and modified another) of my request. I restored my version but it is still the modified one that is on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Can somebody correct that or will it be automatically corrected? Thanks for your help. Mama meta modal (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC).

Number of simultaneous requests

Is there any limit about the number of simultaneous requests a user can file? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the user. In my case, the maximum is zero. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The oldest time life magazine

Bold textHello, I love using Wikipedia for lots of things..However.I was a little Disappointed to read that you claim that the oldest "Time life magazine was issued in May of 1923, If not mistaken.. It was published then by Turner or copyrighted?. I hold The Oldest Time life magazine Thus far, Volume or number 343, issued from New York, July 25, 1889. saying below that, "Entered at the New York post office as second-class mail matter.below that it continues to say, "Copyright, 1889, By Mitchell & Miller.. I am guessing that "The Turner company may have bought the copy rights". Thanks for letting me share.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.102.154 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Comments are requested for the International Churches of Christ Wikipedia entry and talk page. Thank you. Qewr4231 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Major addition, which I think we ought to consider a bit

An editor added a large section to the very top of the page. It's a pretty reasonable section, but it's a major change to this important and venerable page, so I think it'd be a good idea to think about this a bit... whether we want this section, whether it should be place at the very top or not, and whether we want it to say what it does or perhaps change the emphasis somewhat. On that basis I've reverted the addition, without prejudice, and let's what some other people have to say. The section is titled "Brief Summary" and here's what it says:

RfCs are useful for getting uninvolved people's insights on a difficult issue. They prompt a discussion that can help forge consensuses or at the very least make it clear that one side is the one clearly supported by our editors.

In order for anyone to respect the consensus raised, the RfC must be started with care. When filing an RfC on a talk page, {{RfC}} must be used, and immediately following it must be a brief, completely unbiased summary of the issues. Be especially careful that, if you are looking for a choice to be made from among two or more possible options, you give clear "voting" options.

Also, be careful that the RfC is placed on a good talk page for it. If people keep reverting your edits to beluga whale because you are adding unsourced information about how beluga whales and chickens are not closely related, and talk page discussions fail to resolve the situation, then:

• If you think Wikipedia is wrong to require reliable sources, place your RfC at the talk page for Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Write a completely neutral summary of the question at stake (e.g., "Should we allow obvious information to be placed in articles without reliable sources to validate it?") and then write your own comment just below it (perhaps saying something like "Support because reliable sources are overrated.")

• If you think that the policy is fine, but is not applicable in your situation (perhaps you are trying to introduce information claiming that beluga whales are not closely related to chickens and you don't think that you should need a source for this particular situation), file your RfC on the talk page for Beluga whale and (as above) write a completely neutral summary of the issue ("Is a reliable source required in this situation to support the assertion that beluga whales are only distantly related to chickens?") and only then write your opinion ("No, because chickens are far tastier and everybody knows this.")

Herostratus (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As part of the official process page, it reads more like an essay. Not that there is no place for essays, but it adds naught specifically to the page here, and, IMO, would be readily misused by folks who would say that anything which in their opinion is not absolutely correct would be grounds for rejecting the RfC out of hand. By making it a separate essay, such lawyering would,hopefully, be avoided. Collect (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but right now there's a slew of RfCs that are unclear and unhelpfully worded. An RfC must be neutrally worded and provide clear possible answers for people to respond with. And many or most RfCs that I've seen since I started getting the notices fail this... miserably. See, for instance, the utter mess at Talk:Crowned_Crane#rfc_7A5756B and the two different semi-concurrent RfCs. The RfC I linked to had a good description of the issue, but was in a terrible venue (should've been at the offending style WP pages) and did not provide a clear set of choices ("Respond with "Title Case" or "Sentence case" or another answer"). If you want to rewrite this section, that'd be great, but as Mary Poppins said, "well begun is half done". Let's help RfCs be better begun. Red Slash 22:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Red Slash. It's very frustrating when a lot of people come in and give a lot of thought to something and it's useless because it wasn't presented properly.

I think there're two kinds of RfC, one where you just want people to throw out ideas and see what sticks, and one where you're really looking for a decision. Sometimes you need the first type and then the other. If it's a binary decision, it ought to be presented along the lines if "Should we do X, yes or no?" with a Survey section and a Discussion section. If three or four choices need to be presented, ask people to describe what there second (and third etc.) preferences are. Sometimes you want to present two questions (in separate sections) -- "Should we do X, yes or no?" and "If we do do X, should we do in manner Y or manner Z, pick one", that sort of thing. Let's see some thought and logical rigor applied when we're asking people for their time.

Still, an essay along these lines, linked to from here, is probably the best way. That'd allow the essay to go into some detail. "If there are three options, decide how you are going to ask people to express that, and what weighting will be used, here are some suggestions" and so on. Does this page even tell how to make separate Survey and Extended Discussion sections? If not that ought go in too.

Red Slash if you want to move this to an essay -- I'd recommend maybe starting it in your userspace, maybe -- that'd be great, give us the link and let's see what we can do. Herostratus (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right that there are two rather distinct sorts of RfC's--those where we're just gathering information and those where it is made explicitly clear that a clear consensus will result in change X. Perhaps we could create a new process that explicitly calls for aid in making a decision? (RfD?)

In the meantime, the general instructions for how to file an RfC should be the first paragraph on the RfC main page. The situation we have now is failing miserably. Why? Probably because the general instructions about how to file an RfC are not made clear enough. I don't feel like what I wrote was too detailed (I could've easily gone into a LOT of depth) - you have to have some depth if you're going to explain to people what forum they need to choose when filing their RfC. Again, I don't care about the words I've written, but the definite idea behind them must be included here if we want to avoid the current mess that the RfC process is. If a process is being used poorly, repeatedly... then change the instructions! Red Slash 23:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Favorite betrayal criterion

Two separate uninvolved editors have suggested on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_April_14#Favorite_betrayal_criterion that an RfC may be appropriate. I am amenable, but as an involved editor, perhaps I shouldn't be the one to start such an RfC. What should I do? Homunq (࿓) 22:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden : Multiple WP:ASF edits, duplicating negative content, promoting the views of a particular critic and ignoring NPOV

I would like to get some feedback on user Binksternet (talk · contribs) for several WP:ASF edits, duplication of negative content, promoting the views of a particular critic and otherwise for taking a very one sided approach to editing the Vassula Ryden article.

I hope I have posted in the right section this time. I was advised to post in WP:RFC/U. I would like to get feedback on user Binksternet (talk · contribs) for several WP:ASF edits, duplication of negative content, promoting the views of a particular critic and otherwise for taking a very one sided approach to editing the Vassula Ryden article.

WP:ASF Edits

Example 1:

1. Binksternet originally created a paragraph speaking about Dermine that disregarded WP:ASF back in 2012. see diff
2. Administrator LFaroene made an attempt to bring the aforementioned paragraph more inline with WP:ASF beginning 2013. see diff
3. Binksternet immediately reverted the above edit calling it the "consensus version". There was no such consensus. see diff
4. A few days ago, I re-modified it to a more encyclopedic tone citing WP:ASF in my edit. see diff
5. A couple of hours later Binksternet subtly re-inserted his original version of the of text citing other changes made in the edit. Note that he omitted making any mention of reverting his paragraph to his original WP:ASF version. see diff after line 56

Example 2:

In the same edit as mentioned above (see diff Line 32) Binksternet inserted a sentence claiming that "Ryden has never published the first ten months' worth of received messages, explaining that she burned them because there were too many". The entire sentence, be it that she burned the messages, that they were too many or that she even made such an explanation in the first place is a claim made by Dermine, who strongly opposes Ryden and has no credible publishing track record to speak of. Theologians who have a much greater track record have provided a completely different account regarding the missing messages. However Dermine's text is being presented as "a matter of fact" with "Ryden claiming that the reason behind it was etc". Also the text "Father Rene Laurentin contradicted Ryden" is also a claim made by Dermine. That too however, is being presented as a matter of fact. This seems to be another breach of WP:ASF.

Other possible WP:NPOV issues

1. Insertion of Holy See text (see diff) which already appears twice in the article in two other sections, both in the lead and the "Reception". He extended it to the "writings" section as well (see Line 38). The Holy See notification now appears 3 times in the article, in 3 different sections, the lead, the "Reception" section and now the "Writings" section. See Vassula Ryden article and search for "Holy See".
2. WP:GAMING of wikipedia rulebook in removal of Ryden receiving Peace Gold Medal verifiable not least by photograph (see diff). In his edit comment he referred to it as 'non-notable' even though Venerable Suddhananda, the issuer of the medal is the top ranking Buddhist monk of Bangladesh and the Prime Minister of Bangladesh was present (in photograph). Its true that this was uncited (newspapers from Bangladesh can be a bit difficult to acquire) but was deleting this content really necessary when Ryden receiving of this medal is verifiable by photograph and not debated even by Ryden's fiercest opponents? To view the photograph that was removed, see previous subsection version of article here.
3. In his edit comment for this edit (see diff), Binksternet made the comment "The quote is from the back cover, page 142, not from the author." This book, written by theologian and Mariologist Rene Laurentin, an author with an extensive publishing record, contains a lot of informative and supportive material regarding Ryden. Being that Rene Laurentin's written track record is far greater than that of Dermine, and that Binksternet had the book in in his possession, why did he not attribute any material from that book by adding it into the article? Why only insert text attributed to Dermine, who has a much smaller track record and is also a staunch opposer to Ryden? Isn't it the goal of wikipedia to promote multiple views from multiple sources in a balanced manner? It seems in this case, that he has made it a point to acquire Rene Laurentin's book for no other purpose than to scrutinize the references attributed to it.
4. In this edit (see diff) Binksternet added a link to a self published website dedicated to criticizing Vassula Ryden (http://www.pseudomystica.info) within the article itself. This website is hosted by François-Marie Dermine, who is also the author of the book that Binksternet was quoting in his WP:ASF violations (see previous section example 1). This edit, in my view seems to be indicative of an attempt at promoting the website by inserting it directly within the article. Further to this, the edit is also attributed to a WP:SPS (http://www.pseudomystica.info).

Questionable Statements

In a conversation titled "reception section needs work" (see discussion) at comment dated 16:16, 15 April 2014, he posted a misleading statement on how the CDF dialogue was carried about stating it was by email only, despite being well versed in its details, which included a private audience between Ryden and Ratzinger verifiable not least by photograph in an article he was aware of. I am certain of his knowledge of this article because of his extensive participation in a talk page discussion discussing Grechs article (see discussion). This discussion mentioned Grechs article multiple times and also preceded the "reception section needs work" discussion in which he made the misleading statement. In the Grechs article discussion Binksternet made the following statements:

• "No. Simply no. There is no way to game this book review to make the Ryden story a positive one." 18:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC). This comment speaks for itself. (see diff)
• "There is no hopeful note to this story". 5:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC). This comment pretty much brings it home. (see diff)

Neither of the two aforementioned statements strike me as someone who has taken an WP:NPOV approach to this article. I would recommend reading the above discussion in its entirety to acquire context of it. I have been involved in multiple other talk discussion's, RFC's, DRN's where Binksternet downplayed / made misleading statements with regard to positive developments in Ryden's church relations. For the sake of brevity I will exclude them from this post.

In closing

Considering how Binksternet (talk · contribs) inserted and consolidated material attributed to François-Marie Dermine's book in violation to WP:ASF in multiple locations, asserting Dermine's views from the book in the article as fact, did everything to consolidate said edits, and that he inserted a reference to http://www.pseudomystica.info, a website hosted by Dermine directly into the article itself, attributing said insertion to the website itself (WP:SPS), it seems that Binksternet has taken it upon himself to promote Dermine's views in the article. While this is speculative, given his approach to editing the article and his tone in the talk pages, I would not be surprised if Binksternet had a connection with Dermine which would constitute a WP:COI. I do realize however, that this cannot be proven with the information presented here alone.

Upon reviewing Binksternet's edit history one can take note how this editor has taken a very one sided approach to the article. His edit history starts mid 2012. Upon reviewing my edit history you will note that my contributions to the Vassula Ryden article have also been relatively one sided. The differences between me and Binksternet is:

• I respect and follow wikipedia guidelines when they are presented to me, particularly WP:RS and WP:ASF.
• I do not try edit text claimed by authors and present them as facts.
• I do not attempt to trim or remove content that I do not agree with even when the sources attributed to said content are often non notetable.
• I am not a high caliber edtitor like Binksternet, thus I expect much more knowledge / adherence to WP rules than what I have witnessed from his part.

A full explanation of why I have mainly edited the Vassula Ryden article (technically making me an SPA) can be viewed | here. (see TLIG section). I would appreciate some input as to the approach taken by editor Binksternet (talk · contribs) based on what I have reported above. Thanks. Arkatakor (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Since this concerns a user's conduct, you need to follow WP:RFC/USER. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Unresolved case

I feel im being mistreated by a couple of administrators at the moment, recently i had my account blocked by (Future perfect sunrise) after i tried to undo vandalism of the paragraph which i created, before that my work was continually being undone by administrator Dougweller , i feel he may also be using sleepers and undeclared alternative accounts to manufacture reasons to omit sourced information , Ive tried to expand the genetics section of the Cro Magnon article which is much needed but the same Administrator keeps undoing the material with current reasons being that the designation Cro Magnon is not mentioned in the sources when it is highlighted that EEMH is another designation in the lead of the article,i made a fix which i thought was not necessary and then the problem started again,he seems to be accepting obviously unacceptable sources from other editors,i had already conceded to his continued undoing of lead material which was accurate but again unacceptable by his standards, he now has appeared again in a renewed effort to removed sourced material,from what i can gather the only thing he seems to be continually trying to remove from the article is material highlighting one particular ethic group, to try and hide this i believe he is now creating new accounts which show signs of a previous blocked editor and then suddenly he appears again removing the entire section hiding the fact that he is only concerned about removing one paragraph which mentions the Irish ethnic group, if r1b1 is not his sleeper then why is he supporting edits of r1b1 who is a puppit of Paleolithic man, but i cant imagine Paleolithic man would blatantly pick up where he left off as his first edit as a new user, and X editor Paleolithic man was in agreement that both the Irish and Basque should remain in the article ,ive left this for a few more days now and it seems that there is no effort being made to rectify the issue, i usually do not edit on wiki but i found myself having to constantly undo vandalism of virtually the only article ive edited , the objection to my paragraph was in support of the Basque ethnic group as having the highest rate of R1b,from my research i found it to be among the [Gaelic Irish] where is reaches 99%, but under national grouping there seems to be a relatively recent large scale immigration of a Scottish ethnic group ( now known as ulster scots) into the the north east of Ireland who are predominantly an R-M420 ethnic group and this is why Irish as a whole show the rate of R1b1a2 (R-M269) at 85.4% but if grouped this way it is neither the Basque 87.1% or the Irish who have the highest rate of R1b paternal lineage, but the Welsh 92.3% so either way the current material is incorrect , can you please give me your views on this--Kovkikz (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft update of section WP:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_policies.2C_or_other_non-user_issues

If your issue is primarily about the conduct of another user, do not use this process. Instead, use Request for comment on user.

Issues by topic area (View all)
Article topics (View all)
Biographies	(watch)	{{rfc|bio}}
Economy, trade, and companies	(watch)	{{rfc|econ}}
History and geography	(watch)	{{rfc|hist}}
Language and linguistics	(watch)	{{rfc|lang}}
Maths, science, and technology	(watch)	{{rfc|sci}}
Media, the arts, and architecture	(watch)	{{rfc|media}}
Politics, government, and law	(watch)	{{rfc|pol}}
Religion and philosophy	(watch)	{{rfc|reli}}
Society, sports, and culture	(watch)	{{rfc|soc}}
Project-wide topics (View all)
Wikipedia style and naming	(watch)	{{rfc|style}}
Wikipedia policies and guidelines	(watch)	{{rfc|policy}}
WikiProjects and collaborations	(watch)	{{rfc|proj}}
Wikipedia technical issues and templates	(watch)	{{rfc|tech}}
Wikipedia proposals	(watch)	{{rfc|prop}}
Unsorted
Unsorted RfCs	(watch)	{{rfc}}

1. Edit the talk page of the article or project page that you are interested in. Create a new section at the bottom of the talk page. If the talk page already has a section started on the topic, you can edit that existing section, but a new section is generally better.
2. Insert an RfC template at the top of the talk page section. The RfC templates are listed in the adjacent table.
   • Example: {{rfc|econ}} If you are not certain in which area an issue belongs, pick the one that seems closest.
   • If the RfC is relevant to two categories, include them both. For example: {{rfc|econ|bio}}
   • Note that the "Policies and Guidelines" 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", "WikiProject", and all of the other non-article categories.
3. Include a brief, neutral yet complete statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template. The section header will not be copied by the bot to the separate RfC list. Sign the statement with ~~~~ (name and date) or ~~~~~ (just the date) ...

00:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change

I think it might be desirable at some point to add some information about the policy WP:Consensus can change. Some less-experienced editors see RFCs as being "binding" forever and ever, which is wrong. The point is to get a good agreement among the participants, not to have an impartial judge issue a court ruling that everyone's stuck with, no matter how incompetently the "judgment" was issued or what changes next week.

At the same time, repeated discussions can definitely be disruptive, and sometimes an admin will, for good reason, request a moratorium on discussion for a few months or even a year. (ArbCom might have mandated a two- or three-year moratorium once, but I don't remember the details.) This is particularly appropriate when everyone is so sick of the bickering that they aren't thinking, but are just voting "Oppose, same as the previous six identical discussions that Tendentious Terry started". This is accepted (if imposed with good judgment), but it's not documented, so it's going to surprise less experienced editors.

So what I'm thinking is that (perhaps in the section on ending RFCs?) we'd add these basic talking points, in one brief paragraph:

• WP:Consensus can change, so be open to other people starting new discussions.
• Don't keep running the same RFC over and over. Learn WP:How to lose if you didn't get the outcome you wanted.
• Admins may rarely impose a moratorium on discussions to prevent disruption.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's a reasonable idea, although I guess the devil would be in the details (of the wording). Putting it in an essay and then linking to that essay from here instead would have advantages:

1. Much easier to write it, by yourself or with a couple friendly editors. Since this is de facto a kinda-sorta official page, getting consensus for the wording of a significant addition could be a lot of work.
2. It could be longer and give examples and cases; if it's in the body here, we wouldn't want much more than a paragraph.
3. You have a link (WP:THINGSCHANGE or whatever) convenient for people to point to it (you could also have an link into a section on this page though, that's kind of a wash).

Disadvantage is it would be less visible, people are more likely to read a section in this page than follow a See Also link. Herostratus (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't this listed?

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress - I also note that the desired outcome is " Topic ban for nine months from all Somalia military and political articles, broadly defined. By observation rather than participation, it is hoped that the necessity to follow the fundamental wikipedia rule of WP:NPOV will be learned during that topic ban." Unless things have changed, this isn't appropriate. Topic bans are normally done at AN or ANI. Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Where to put the RfC tag

I have been entangled with a new user, who set up an RfC recently at the top of a section that had been opened in July 2013. See this dif. I am trying to explain why this was not proper, and am having a hard time with that. To avoid problems like this in the future, I just boldly edited the instructions in this dif to remove the confusing wording suggesting that it might be OK to put the tag at the top of an already existing section. I have never seen anybody experienced start an RfC in the middle of an old discussion. much less at the top of an old one (not that I have seen everything!! by no means). Hopefully this change makes sense to everybody. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not unusual for a mostly amicable discussion to become an RFC mid-discussion. However, that usually happens within a few days of the discussion starting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen that happen before. Zell Faze (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Deprecation of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

there is a clear consensus for the board to be marked as historical. I have done this, and archived all the historical content present on that page. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board is a place where users can make a request for comment without following the instructions at WP:RFC or WP:RFCUSER. In theory, volunteers are meant to move discussion from the request board to an appropriate place elsewhere on Wikipedia.

The request board has a terrible backlog; on August 6, I archived 166 kB of material from July 2012 to December 2013 that had remained on the request board. Due to the constant buildup of material that needs to be moved elsewhere, and the clear instructions on how to request an RfC included at WP:RFC, I suggest that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board be deprecated. Specifically, it should be closed by marking the page as historical and removing links to it from WP:RFC. G. C. Hood (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I've found some details about the genesis of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board. It was created by User:Harej on February 22, 2010, and first mentioned at WP:RFC on February 23, 2010. There was not any discussion of the change on the RfC talk page at that time. See Archive 10 and Archive 11. There was a brief discussion about the backlog on the request board in June, 2012, but no discussion of the board or its purpose on the relevant talk pages before or since. G. C. Hood (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

N.B. The following text would also have to be removed from the bot-edited RfC subpages.

G. C. Hood (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The text on the bot-edited sub-pages is Template:RFC list footer. It could, presumably, be speedily deleted under WP:T2 if a consensus is reached to close the Request board. G. C. Hood (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have added an RfC tag and listed this at Template:Centralized discussion to attract more input. Cunard (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board and mark it as historical per the nominator's excellent research. A highly backlogged noticeboard does more harm than good. The noticeboard gives inexperienced editors the false expectation that an experienced editor will promptly transfer the discussion from the request board to the appropriate location.

  A review of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board/Archive 2 indicates that many of the requests did not receive replies. Cunard (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support nominators suggestion. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 21:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Close and mark as historical Was created without consensus and doesn't work. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • On this note, I think its also worth pointing out that people should be bold; its one of our core principles. A board like that seems like a good idea, even if in practice it didn't work out. I would also Close and mark as historical. Zell Faze (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Mark as historical If we've got some process and it isn't actually helping people achieve the goal they are seeking (i.e. starting an RfC), it's not a very useful process and keeping it around lulls users into using it when it won't actually help. Deprecating processes that don't seem to be working is a simple way to improve the 'pedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Mark as historical Surely it cannot accomplish its purposes; if we want to look at all RfCs we have classified lists.Forbidden User (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Some history – the Request Board dates back to an era where I transitioned the RFC lists from being manually updated to bot-updated only. Because they were bot updated pages, people were no longer able to manually add their own entries (this was by design). This caused some concern, so I created the Request Board as an accommodation. Apparently it has not performed its function well, so I have no problem if it is archived and relegated to the annals of history. Harej (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Close and mark as historical - From the looks of things, this is a method for creating RfCs that is outdated and much less efficient than just following the instructions and going to the talk page of the affected article and adding {{rfc}}. This action places the discussion on this list here. This board may have once been useful, but it is no longer an asset to this project and should indeed be "relegated to the annals of history" Mz7 (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Close and mark as historical as we've all moved on to better boards & whatnot, Until today I didn't even know it even existed!, It actually looks pretty helpful but no point keeping a board open that hardly gets used. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Close and mark as historical per the above. Protonk (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Close and historical. We went through one of these dead processes back in April/May when deprecating WP:ER. The biggest problem with these processes isn't necessarily that they're dead, but that should someone inexperienced try to address the backlog and start dispensing really bad advice. Clashes that ensue from that bad advice can cost us editors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Structuring an rfc

Searchability & Visibility of topic tags in Flow is a related discussion... --Gryllida 05:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And why isn't this listed?

I feel a bit like an idiot because I've asked this question before and I think I was answered, but can't find the answer. It's Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Worldedixor - is there something still wrong with it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Solved. Basically anyone can do this. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-Neutral RFC

What is the proper response by another editor to a very non-neutral RFC? In the case in point, this is a content RFC, and I happen to agree with the poster of the RFC, but the RFC states what the poster's opinion is, rather than asking which of two alternatives is the consensus (in this case as to wording of the lede of the article)? My concern is that a non-neutral RFC may not be accepted as establishing consensus as well as a neutral RFC will. Should I try to repair the RFC? The RFC in question, by the way, is at Talk: Artificial Intelligence, and I had suggested that the RFC process be used in place of moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard or arbitration. (Maybe I shouldn't have made any suggestions.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As I've said there, the goal is to do your best. The community assumes that people responding to RFCs are capable of spotting and discounting bias (in fact, a biased question often boomerangs on people, just like claiming that a question is terribly biased will convince people that someone is afraid that he's losing).

There's absolutely no requirement that the RFC present two alternatives. This is popular because it's simple, but you can use RFCs to make proposals ("I think we should do X" or to pose open-ended questions ("What do you think about my idea?") or to have any sort of discussion that people might want to comment on.

I like the way you've simplified the question there. Short, simple questions are more popular with people responding to RFCs. Someone else has just sorted out a problem with duplicated id numbers, so the normal description should start appearing again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Guidance on who can close

I was surprised to see a non-admin close a very contentious RfC. However, I was more surprised to see nothing in the policy about this. I think it would be wise to add some guidance to suggest that contentious RfC's are best close by admins, and in some cases, by a panel of three admins.

I suggest starting with some general discussion, then seeing where it leads, whether a simple statement is sufficient, whether we ought to codify what "contentious" means, and whether we need an RfC to make a change (Probably yes).

It occurs to me that I don't even know what this (WP:RFC) is—it isn't identified as a policy, guideline or essay.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It is procedural guidance for WP:Dispute Resolution and WP:Consensus; more to the point, closing is covered in WP:Close. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My recommendation would be that all RfC's cannot be closed before one week, unless by the person who opened the RfC withdraws it (they no longer feel comment is necessary), or it is WP:SNOW closed. After one week, any uninvolved editor can close unless a request is made by one of the involved editors. A request can be made by an involved editor either 1) to have it stay open until an entire 30 days is up (they feel that their is not sufficient commentary on it), or 2) that consensus be decided by an uninvolved administrator. If either of those two requests are made, then it should be granted (ie it shouldn't be closed until that occurs). A further request can be made to have it be decided by a panel of 3 uninvolved administrators, but that is discretionary (up to the closing admin to grant or not), unless there is a consensus of involved editors that it is needed (as evaluated by the closing admin and any review to reopen the closure).

The disadvantages of such a system are that it increases the amount of work that admins have to do. Secondly that it increases the power of administrators over normal editors. The good things are 1) that admins are much more likely to carefully review the closing decision then a normal editor. (Admins tend to have put in a lot of time and effort in establishing a good reputation of being fair and will not want to ruin that.) 2) the admins are less likely to be advocating one side in the dispute or conflict of intrest, or otherwise not have a neutral point of view on the subject. 3) Its far too easy for an involved editor to create (or have) a sockpuppet close the RfC on their behalf without anyone finding out, this would prevent that. (Yes there are other ways to look and try to find who is a sock puppet but they are not full-proof if they use a different IP)

As this isn't really the policy page, maybe this discussion should be moved off to the talk page for Wikipedia:Consensus or WP:CLOSE, What do you think of this proposal? Would that be too many RfC's that require an admin to close? (If that is the case maybe require that the request for closure by an admin be seconded by another editor?) --Obsidi (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My point is that we have established procedures for how to change policies, guidance and essay, and I don't know how formal we should be when changing a procedural guideline. I see that WP:CLOSE explicitly states it is not a policy or guideline.

I also see that WP:CLOSE hints at some guidance:

However, requests for closure may be made to an uninvolved administrator for discussions that have been open at least a week and are particularly contentious or unclear.

That wording is very loose, so we need to consider tightening it, as well as making sure that WP:CLOSE and WP:RFC are in sync.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I was also surprised that a non-admin closed it, and am sympathetic to the complaints of those who thought it should have been closed by an admin instead of a "ordinary" editor (like myself). And maybe there needs to be a policy, but since all closings are subject to review I'm not convinced such a policy is necessary. Seems to me that the process worked this time - a non-admin closed it, there was a review, and an admin signed off on the close. If there were enugh serious problems with the close it would have been reverted upon review. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes but the question becomes what is the standard of review for the review of the closure? Is it for abuse of discretion (they could have closed, but they did so unreasonably). If so that is a fairly generous standard given to the closure and it encourages people who have strong feelings about the subject to sit back and wait so they can cast their WP:SUPERVOTE as long as the decision they make is "close". If it is reviewed de novo by an admin, then what is the point of having it closed by a non-admin in the first place (if the admin can reverse just because he would have closed a different way). Better that an admin make the first closure, so the effect of a WP:SUPERVOTE is lessened as an admin is less likely to have strong feelings on the subject and will have a strong incentive to at least appear fair. --Obsidi (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) You might also be interested in the specific guidance to non-admin closures. It's not a policy or guideline, but generally is followed as a best practice. To sum up, any editor uninvolved in the matter and in good standing may close a discussion with an obvious outcome. More difficult or contentious discussions are generally better left to an admin to close, and admins must also close any discussion where admin tools will be necessary to effectuate the result (e.g., edits made to protected pages, deletion discussions closed as "delete"). In any case, an uninvolved administrator can review and if necessary reverse any non-admin closure. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_12#Review. NE Ent 22:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What about what Seraphimblade said was incorrect? (I read the thread you linked). --Obsidi (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears there was an RfC I had never heard of. Not really sure if that'd be how it would work in practice, but reading the linked discussion is informative, so thanks to NE Ent for bringing it up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That a single administrator can review/reverse a NAC. Obviously any close is subject to review, but it should be a community discussion at WP:AN. (And of course the policy can change if there's a consensus to do so now). NE Ent 01:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh and you really want to make sure to require that the request that an admin close be made BEFORE the closure. You don't want to allow non-admin closures and then have someone who doesn't like the result request that only an admin close. That would be very bad and lead to a lot of abuse. --Obsidi (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's not clear that the current guidelines and procedures are insufficient. In fact, the situation that prompted this conversation [4] seems to have proceeded without much issue beyond a number of editors feeling that the current closure guidance should discourage non-admin closure. aprock (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd put it differently. The current procedures do discourage NAC in these circumstances, but they weren't followed. What suggestions do you have to make it clearer?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to WP:RFC, WP:CLOSE, WP:CONSENSUS, or some other policy/procedure page? aprock (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Support current policy, as determined by the last RFC Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_12#Review. NE Ent 22:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I started this discussion here, as it seemed the right place to start. However, I've subsequently learned that there are a number of pages relevant to this issue:

• WP:RFC
• WP:CLOSE
• Wikipedia:Consensus
• WP:Dispute Resolution
• Review (of closure rules)

I agree with NE Ent that the last item is current policy, it talks about the status of a closed RfC, it does not comment on when a non-admin ought to be performing an NAC.

I suggest moving or continuing this discussion at WP:VPI to work out what the issues are, and to formulate some draft policy wording, which could then go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

As an aside, when an RFC such as the one linked above codifies or changes policy, we ought to have a process for updating the relevant policy pages. I'll bet my salary less than 5% of editors could tell you about the policy decision made in the RfC.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

advice to post draft of RfC

In this dif I added advice to this guideline-thing in the section "Before starting the Request for comment process", which read: "With respect to RfCs about non-user issues, it is wise to present a draft of the RfC on the Talk page and get reasonable consensus on the approach and specific language of the RfC before actually launching it. Much consternation is generated and much time is wasted on RfCs that are flawed."

I am currently dealing with such a mess (here, for anyone who cares) and have seen it happen lots of times before. My antagonist in the current mess, Collect, just now reverted with edit note: "now discuss the Bold edit - and note the current RfCs you are upset about as this seems now to be a solution in search of a problem, alas".

I do think the advice is sound and have seen folks do it many times. I have also seen people launch RfCs without discussion and seen many of those become train wrecks. I was surprised not to find guidance on this here, so boldly added it. I now happily discuss, per WP:BRD. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC) not interested in this kind of interaction. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC))

In the case at hand, you are angry with an absolutely neutrally worded RfC at Talk:Christian terrorism

(Ought this article be limited to terrorism primarily associated with promoting Christianity, or ought it be broadly construed as including all terrorist groups which have any connection with Christianity, whether or not the goal of the terrorism is to specifically promote that religion? 13:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)) , and appear to wish to change the informal procedure because of your anger.

Your proposal:

"Should the scope of this article deal with "Christian terrorism" narrowly, as terrorists who state their goals primarily in religious/theological terms, or should it deal with Christian terrorism more broadly to include terrorists that have a clear Christian identity (religious or cultural) but have goals that are not primarily stated in theological terms. Examples of the former include the Lord's Resistance Army; examples of latter include the IRA (clearly Catholic but with the political goal of an independent Ireland) and Anders Behring Breivik (who said he was not "particularly religious" but strongly identified with "Christian culture" and wanted to protest what he saw as encroachment of other cultures)."

which is a tad convoluted and easily seen as presenting a specific point of view.

You then wrote:

The proponents of the non-narrow alternative have explicitly told you several times that you framed the non-narrow alternative too broadly; you've made a strawman out of it. This RfC is a big waste of time and we are not going to make progress without a valid RfC or some other means to break the impasse on scope. Please withdraw it so we can try to move forward.

Which is interesting, as it is clear that your proposed wording - which you seem to wish to displace the NPOV wording, is aimed at getting the results you want <g>. Sorry - that is not how the process works. Cheers -- and I note that you present no strong reasons for your Bold change to the long-established procedure. Collect (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What Jytdog proposed is something that many editors believe is already "the rule". It can sometimes be (very) helpful; it can sometimes be unhelpful. I can see two useful ways to address this issue:

1. Get the WP:TROUTs out more often to deal with editors whose response to an RFC is to whinge about the question not being "neutral". To be blunt, claiming that an RFC question is non-neutral is a very common obstructionist tactic. If I think I'm going to "lose" the RFC, then delaying or even preventing you from opening the discussion, and then wikilawyering the neutrality of the question to death, is a way to hold on to the Right Version™ as long as possible.
2. Offer this approach as an alternative with the advice we're already giving to people who don't feel that they're able to write a neutral question.

Perhaps the best response would be to tell editors that if they aren't capable of seeing through a moderately biased question and still providing useful, relevant, content-based responses (i.e., not addressing the bureaucratic issue of whether the question is adequately neutral), then they really shouldn't be responding to any RFCs at all. No matter how widely held this view is, I can't really see the community writing that down that anywhere outside of WP:CIR, though. It doesn't have the right tone for a page like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Blanking of RFC/U?

What are the conditions under which an RFC can be declared to be "irretrievably broken", such that one admin may decide to erase it (so that it can no longer be seen, not merely hatted) and may then disregard comments by other GF editors, before recreating the RFC as their own edited draft, with only the views of one side preserved?

See:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves
• User_talk:Jehochman#Rfcu
• User:Jehochman/Draft

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I've requested undeletion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Rfcu_deletion_review NE Ent 08:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As explained elsewhere, RFC/U pages are always deleted unless they are signed by two editors who have discussed the same issue with the user within 48 hours.

However, this isn't like AFD for a non-notable garage band. You may re-create the page as soon as you are able to meet the minimum requirements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

widest rfc resource

Where would be the best place to post a rfc that would have the best chance for the widest coverage to ask for input? AlbinoFerret (talk)

AlbinoFerret, the answer depends on the subject (policy? article? which one?). Would you like to tell us a bit more about what's on your mind? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure,WhatamIdoing I believe that the e-cigarette article is categorized in the wrong category. It is a consumer product that does not need a prescription. I can find no other consumer product that contains nicotine categorized as medical. In order to help bring about a change of category that I think a RFC is a good idea as there has been reluctance on the part of medical editors to change the category when changing it has been discussed. But changes to non medical sections are being downplayed by a medical agenda imho. It is also a fact that the health effects sections would still be covered under WP:MEDRS so no lessening of sources would happen in those sections. I would like to get input from other editors outside of medical editors on the category as well as the people who edit in the medical category to get a broader view on the subject. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi AlbinoFerret,

The categories on that article are:

• Category:Cigarette types
• Category:Technology
• Category:Chinese inventions
• Category:Smoking cessation
• Category:2003 introductions

It only looks like one of them has anything to do with medicine, and I think that, since it is used as a smoking cessation device, then it's good to have the article listed in that category.

But if you want to have a go at changing the article's categories, and you don't think that a regular discussion is going to be sufficient, then I think you could start an RFC and reasonably post notices about the RFC at WP:VPM as well as on related WikiProjects, including WPMED and Wikipedia:WikiProject Drug Policy. Efforts to create a "WikiProject Tobacco" failed a few years ago (many editors wish that one existed, but nobody wants to join it), and WP:WikiProject Cigars was deleted for lack of members. This explains why there are no WikiProjects listed at Talk:Cigarette and only WikiProjects Plant at Talk:Tobacco. WikiProject Plants isn't really relevant. You could consider any project listed at Talk:Nicotine, or perhaps WP:WikiProject Business, which supports the article about consumer products.

I suggest that if you start the RFC, that you name the exact categories that you want to add and/or remove. People might come up with alternate suggestions, but you'll get more responses with a specific question. Don't forget to add the colon (:) at the start of the cat name, so that the cat will be linked instead of placing the talk page in the category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The actual page isnt listed as medical, but the talk page is. Medical editors must think that because the talk page is listed as medical it applies to the actual article itself. Would the Village Pump Misc be an option? Because what I would like is to get the opinions of consumers. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the WikiProject tags. You have no real recourse there.

A WP:WikiProject is a group of people. Usually, these self-organized groups are formed around a content area (e.g., medicine) or a type of work (e.g., copyediting). Any of these groups of people, regardless of their self-chosen names or their usual areas of interest, is permitted to tag any articles they want. These tags form a (public) watchlist for the group. Nobody is permitted to tell the group that they aren't allowed to watch whatever articles they want, just like nobody is allowed to tell you that you have to take an article off your private watchlist.

The point behind the tag is to say that this particular group of editors is interested in improving this article and hearing (via bot) about changes in its status (e.g., if it's sent to AFD or GA). The right to decide whether the group gets these notifications is exclusively assigned to the editors in the group. If WPMED (for example) decides that it wants to support an article about computer software, then that's their choice, no matter how silly it seems to everyone else; if they decide that they don't want to support the article about heart attacks, then that, too, would be their choice, no matter how silly it seems to everyone else.

To put it another way, the process is:

1. Decide that your group wants to support this article.
2. Tag it so that the article is on your group's list.

The process is not:

1. See that the article is tagged for your group.
2. Decide that the article must be about your favorite subject.

If you think about it, and you think about a subject like Leonardo da Vinci, which is tagged by 14 or 15 groups, then it's pretty obvious. You wouldn't want one person showing up and saying, "This man is a medical subject!" and the next saying, "No, he's not! This man is a French subject!" and so forth, all the way down the list. The banner doesn't prove anything except that a group of editors is interested in supporting the page.

One thing you could do is to go to other related WikiProjects and ask whether they, too, might happen to be interested in the subject. If they are, then they'll come back to the article and add their own banners. (It may take them a while.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment WhatamIdoing. But dont the categories at the bottom of the page place the talk page in the medical category? Are you saying that if the main page is not in a medical category then the guidelines for that category dont apply? I understand that sections of a page may fall under a specific guideline even if the page is not in the category, like WP:MEDRS covering what types of sources should be used in Health sections of all pages. But since E-Cigarettes main page is not in a medical category, WP:MEDMOS would not apply to the whole page? AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The categories on the talk page, like Category:B-Class medicine articles, come from the WikiProject banners, and they don't tell you anything at all about how the subject ought to be classified. (Go look at the list of cats on Talk:Leonardo da Vinci: imagine if every one of those groups said "our category is on the talk page, so the order must be our way!") Those cats are used by bots to figure out which pages should be notified about some actions, like nominating the page for deletion. Some of them are used by the WP:1.0 team for offline releases of better and more important articles. They don't mean anything about the subject.

What determines whether a page is subject to a community-wide (but subject-specific) guideline like MEDMOS is the editors who are working on that article. This is an important fact, because otherwise we'll have a disaster on all articles about small-molecule drugs. All of those articles are both about "chemicals" and "pharmaceutical drugs", and the two groups give some conflicting advice (e.g., about which infobox to use). In practice, we have no trouble. People talk about whether something is mostly discussed as a drug or as a chemical, and follow the system normally used for whichever use seems to be more prominent. (In that particular example, I think I've seen only two significant disputes in the last seven or eight years, and both of them involved a substance that had significant non-drug uses and fairly minor drug uses.)

For the particular dispute, editors need to decide whether the average reader will expect to see an article structured like a "medical device" (which is an incredibly broad and diverse category that covers everything from bedding to thermometers to glucometers to surgery robots), or whether the reader will expect it to see it structured like an article about, say, an iPad. One suggestion that might help the "this article should work like iPad" approach would be to tell people what a typical order for a consumer product is. "MEDMOS vs chaos" doesn't always appeal to people. (On the other hand, if people dislike the typical non-MEDMOS order, then they might !vote in favor of MEDMOS as the lesser of two evils. I'm not really sure which is more likely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that answer, you have been very helpful. You have explained some thing that really made no sense to me, talk page categories, and the answers were hard to find. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How does one modify and RFC

If someone changes the article in question. Addings references proving the point of the RFC that clames made are Unsupported attributions. The original RFC wording wasn't clear on that point. Editing it does not show up in the notices. Or will it eventuall show up. What is the procedure on this. --Steamerandy (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No need to change the RFC itself... if the RFC is still active, just leave a comment in the RFC discussion, noting the new references and the impact that you think they should have on the issue. If the RFC has already been closed, you can start a new RFC, noting the new references and how you think they do/do not call into question the outcome of the previous closure. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Closing an RFC on an Archived Talk Page

Occasionally an RFC for which closure is requested is on an archive of the talk page, rather than the talk page itself. (Normally that shouldn't happen unless the bot settings are for fast archiving or the RFC became stale.) An archive of a talk page states that it should not be edited. Is closing an RFC on an archived talk page an exception to that rule? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, is it considered appropriate for an editor who was involved in the RFC to archive part of the talk page manually? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If the closure request were coming from someone involved in the RFC, then you probably wouldn't have this problem. I'm not aware of it having ever happened before ANRFC was created and acquired one editor who lists almost every RFC on the wiki there, regardless of the wishes of the participants. I suspect that it's going to be a regular problem. If I were dealing with one of those, I'd leave it alone, remove the item from ANRFC, and ask the editor over at ANRFC to be a lot more selective about his listings (again).

There's nothing magic about RFCs. If editors accept manual archiving of discussions at that page, then they can and will accept manual archiving of the RFC, too. An RFC is just a discussion that's been advertised a little more widely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

When RFC is archived?

An RFC is archived, as I see it, in three situations. First, the RFC is poorly responded to, mostly within a few days after it is posted. In this case it should probably just be ignored. Second, the responses to the RFC are numerous, but happen within about the first three weeks, so that there are no new responses to the thread that is the RFC, and the bot determines that the thread is stale. Third, because the talk page is extremely active, the bot parameters are set to archive threads very quickly, and the bot archives the RFC thread. In the second and third cases, the RFC may really need closure, in that consensus may need to be finalized. It may not be a stale RFC, even if the thread is stale. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What happened most recently is that an RFC had many responses, but was archived. (I am not sure whether it was the second case or the third. It doesn't matter.) The RFC asked whether to shorten two particular lists in an infobox. There was consensus to shorten the infobox. After the RFC was closed, one editor decided that there was consensus for shortening the infobox and did so. Another editor reverted to the longer infobox, saying that there wasn't consensus. Both editors were right in their own ways, except that they were edit-warring. In this case, closure of the RFC really was necessary in order to finalize consensus. Sometimes the archived RFC doesn't need closure, but sometimes it does. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Should the archived RFC be closed in place in the archive, or should it be manually moved back to the talk page for closure? Maybe the latter is better. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It is true that one editor diligently posts requests to close everything, without a request from involved editors. In this case there were two requests, one from the editor who requests everything, and one from one of the involved editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments? Should I open a meta-RFC on archived RFCs? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to shut down RFC for user conduct

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Do Away with RFC/U Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This only has to do with RFC/U, not with content RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct - I didn't realize that they all shared a single talk page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What must I do

I have challenged certain pages on numbers and simplicity and such but with no malicious intent and with no implications to vandalize, for instance on the Gettysburg American Civil War battle page. I would like to become an admin and put my request here.shyjayb 23:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Repeat requests

On November 6th, I received a RFC directing me to Talk:Electronic cigarette, and responded to it. Today I received two more, to Talk:Electronic cigarette and to Talk:Electronic cigarette. (The second one appears to be about for a new RFC on same issue as the first, what to call the aerosol/mist/vapor that the devices produce; and the third is about a different issue.) I am unlikely to respond to either: "been there, done that".

I would like to propose that the software be modified, so that a user does not receive more than one RFC for the same article within, say, six months. Maproom (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC note added

I just added a note about the February 2013 RFC on non-admin closures. I found it difficult to fairly and adequately the summary in a brief note so review and improvement, if possible, would be appreciated. NE Ent 02:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Requests for Comment User Conduct now shut down

Per community consensus, Request for Comment User Conduct is now shut down. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Do Away with RFC/U for the full discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wondering if we should make a note of this on the page... and tell editors where to go if they do have problems with other editors. Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Never mind... it's there. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to template

Please comment on a proposed change to {{Rfc}} at Template talk:Rfc#Do not archive until. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Where to complain about bullying?

I have contributed to English Wikipdeia for many years but have very rarely used RfC, only recently a few times. I'm very disappointed, since it feels to me like my latest two request for comment have been used instead as inspiration for bullying by 4-5 editors who (as I see it) refuse to deal with the issues I request comments on, intentionally derail the discussion and prefer to gang up on me, single me out as a hopeless contributor, claim (falsely) that I have no support from anyone else and finally today have started calling me a troll. Is there anywhere constructive that I can complain about that, or, honestly, is it any use? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest Administrator's noticeboard for incidents. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing believes that his opinion on an article naming dispute is obviously and indisputably correct (hence his repeated declaration that users should not respond to his RfC unless they agree with him and seek a solution to the problem that he perceives). This is why he apparently regards the expression of disagreement as "bullying", "[refusing] to deal with the issues [he requests] comments on", "intentionally derail[ing] the discussion", and "gang[ing] up on him".

Eventually, he inexplicably opened a second RfC (regarding exactly the same issue) directly below the first one. (These are the "latest two" to which he referred above.) That's when I noted that I want to assume good faith on his part, but his behavior had begun to resemble trolling (verb). Another editor replied by stating that one of "trolling, disruption, incompetence" probably was an accurate description. At no point did anyone call SergeWoodzing "a troll" (noun) or even assert with any degree of certainly that he was trolling.

I encourage anyone interested in the matter to read the two sections instead of relying on SergeWoodzing's account or mine. —David Levy 00:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

So do I. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad that we agree on that, at least. —David Levy 08:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Serge, but you are completely off the mark here. Telling you what the actual policies of English Wikipedia are in regards to a topic and insisting that you follow those policies is not bullying in the slightest. I understand that you want to right a great wrong, but Wikipedia is not the place to do that - academia is. If you want to set the record straight about this matter, you need to do serious scholarly study that shows that what the English sources say are wrong, and have that scholarship published by an academic journal, and then Wikipedia can incorporate that change, because it reflects the best scholarship out there. But Wikipedia doesn't get to just decide that the reliable English sources are wrong. Ever. No matter what the subject. It is fundamentally offensive to the foundations of creating an encyclopedia to just contradict reliable sources. VanIsaac_WS^cont 09:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Concur with Vanissac. NE Ent 11:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

STOP... this is not the place to go into details... those of us watching this page don't need to know whether Serge was actually being bullied or not... nor do we care... his question was "where to complain about bullying?" That question has been answered (complain at ANI). If he takes it further, and actually files a complaint at ANI... then it would be appropriate to defend yourselves and explain what is going on. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sergewoodzing has now started sections to get support on this Helwig/Hedwig issue in two nearly identical RFC's at Talk:Hedwig of Holstein, at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 279#Accuracy versus consensus, at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#When consensus screws thing up real bad, and now here. A lot of time has been spent on this but the wanted support hasn't come in any of the places. I seriously hope this ends here and doesn't go to ANI too, and wherever else he hopes to find support for changing one letter and disallowing posts which disagree. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Again... please STOP... this is not the place to complain about Serge, or for him to complain about you. Those of us who watch this talk page do not care about all that. The appropriate venue to complain about that stuff is ANI. Either take it there or let it drop. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• those of us watching this page don't need to know whether Serge was actually being bullied or not... nor do we care... Says it all. Leaky Caldron 17:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you tag the sources of a statement, directly related to RfC?

There is a RfC on a Talk:Battle of Chawinda, it concerns the statement "Major pakistani victory", however each of the sources that had been added along with the statement on the infobox are either primary, dubious or misrepresented. While not editing the concerning statement("Major pakistani victory"), can you still tag the sources during the RfC? Since it concerns the reliability of the sources and provides the better outlook and dispute related with the sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:OccultZone, I believe that, even if you very carefully search through this page, you will find no rule against editing (real editing, in the article itself) any statement that happens to be under discussion. It follows therefore that there is no rule against tagging such statements while they are being discussed. Some tags will even let you link directly to the RFC on the talk page, which might even be helpful.

While it's permitted, please remember that it's not always wise to do so. You have to consider whether the action is likely to create drama rather than move things forward. If the article is contentious, I'd certainly expect people to yell at you for "violating" a popular essay (one that they probably haven't actually read for years, if ever). Choosing not to tag statements might be the more collaborative response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeat requests again

I have received a fourth RfC to Talk:Electronic cigarette. All are essentially about the same issue. I suspect the process is being abused. Maproom (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Where on the page? I can't find it.Formerly 98 (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You can find all four Requests on my talk page. They are dated Nov. 6, Nov. 26, Nov. 26, Dec. 28. Maproom (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Great Authors

Moved to User talk:Fasterhand on 01:54, 8 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Reverting the original Poster's decision to end an RfC

As I read the policy, "the question may be withdrawn by the poster" gives the original person posting the RfC a right to close it. This was done on a page I was editing, but another editor reverted the closing of the RfC arguing that closing could only be done by a non-participating editor.

Does the reverting editor have any right to revert closure of the RFC by the original poster?

The original RfC was about a single proposed sentence relying on a single source. It is my impression this was done to prevent other editors, including myself, from moving the discussion forward based on suggestions made as a result of the RfC, which now incorporate multiple sources which put the original suggested source into more balanced context. If there are objections to the new proposed material, a new RfC may be appropriate, but the reverting editor insists that no new RfC may be introduced until the prior RfC is closed and also refuses to let the editor who posted that RfC to close it. Is there justification or precedent for this?-GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone help me edit/create a page on Hammerton Killick?

Can someome help me edit/create a page called Killick? I need help doing it because I want to add a bunch to it, but I Don't have a lot of time on my hands, so can you help me please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolpug05 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Are redirects non-articles?

The sidebar listing categories (at {{Wider attention}}) distinguishes between article (mainspace) and non-article categories. Redirects and disambiguation pages are in mainspace, but they are not articles; which area do they fall under? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I’m going to assume that “articles” means actual articles, as opposed to every page in article space. I’m editing that table to make it more clear. If I’m wrong, then please, someone explain what was originally meant. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

They really form their own separate area. At WT:SAL, we refer to them as "Navigational pages" (as their purpose is purely to help readers navigate around Wikipedia)... to distinguish them from "Informational pages" (actual articles and lists that present information). Would this distinction help clarify what you are talking about? Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if such a distinction was meant in the list here. But as I later said, the “non-article” categories are in practice used for informational pages as well, so I suppose my original question is kind of irrelevant. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Since editors do use the “non-article” RFC categories (especially style) on article Talk pages… would there be any objection to removing that restriction from the listing? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Late post, but: I did. They’re now sectioned into categories of article topics and overall project categories, rather than categories allowed on articles and ones not. If I’m misunderstanding either current practice or the intent of the previous headings (or both), please explain here and consider clarifying on the page. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move notice

You know that list of RFC issues by topic area? That’s transcluded from the Template: namespace. I’ve asked for it to be moved to a subpage of this page. Please comment there. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

You're a really helpful site; couldn't make it without ya! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.160.65 (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Consensus on band timeline colour schemes

Could we please discuss different band timeline colour schemes and reach a consensus? Thanks – 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a note: This talk page may not be the best place for this discussion. I’m not even sure what the topic is. If this is about musical band articles, I suggest WT:WikiProject Music. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Can someone close this speedily, please? Red Slash 21:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC not listed

I made a RfC about a day ago at Template talk:Freenode and it hasn't been listed yet, can someone check if something is wrong? Thanks PhantomTech (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

legobot's RfC task was down for a week and is running again. PhantomTech (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice Template at Top of Page

There is a template at the top of this page that mentions problems with getting an RFC listed by the bot. However, the bot is not the bot that is currently being used, to the best of my knowledge. Was an older bot replaced by the use of Legobot? If so, should the template be tweaked? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, legobot replaced the old bot. The template should be modified to use the new name but probably should also be more clear on how to check if something's wrong with the bot, legobot's RfC task seems to run independent of other tasks so it can stop without other tasks stopping. PhantomTech (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Should a gossip article be used as a source for someone's birthyear?

Dear Wikipedians, I would like to ask your opinion on this matter. Firstofall, I would like to apologize for my English, it isn't my native language. The age of a certain reality star has been disputed for a couple of years. She herself says in interviews and on twitter that she is born in 1982. However on the page of the show is written that she is born in 1969/1970. The gossip section of the New York Post, page 6, has been used as source. I didn't think that it's a reliable source and used another source, in which she was said to be 31 years old. A Wikipedian undid my edit within 5 minutes, calling the former source, page 6, a highly reputable news source. I tried to agree with him/her to delete the birthyear since it isn't really clear. Unfortunately this person refuses this. You can read the discussion here. Histogenea22 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to state I did not refuse as it is being accused of me; I simply stated, per quote: "Until more input has been given, we should simply leave it as it is" and "Because, as it is, all of the ladies' birthdates (aside from Renee) could be removed since none of them are cited by a source". And if we're going to call one person's DOB into question, we should question the others, as well. And I merely believed that more than two opinions would be more acceptable, especially given that discussion was barely open for less than twenty-four hours, where other editors could comment and leave their on input. As such, her saying she is "32 years of age" is a dispute in itself; we can all lie about our age. See the pages of Janice Dickinson, whose age has largely been disputed for her entire career, or that of Mariah Carey whose situation is of much more closeness to that of Natalie. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The only question I would like to ask to all of you reading this is: Is this gossip article reliable enough to obelize her year of birth, which she said herself to be 1982? Histogenea22 (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Gossip sources, including Page Six and any affiliate of New York Post, are NOT reliable; they should never be used at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Histogenea22 (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

PageSix is part of a long established newspaper which is subject to editorial review. It is a reliable source for age info.2601:C:6783:6A01:7DA8:842C:D681:CD8B (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Page not showing up on watchlist.

The History and geography RfC page has been on my watchlist since the end of March but no changes made to it have ever shown up. Does anyone know why this may be? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite,

Look at the top of your watchlist, in the "Watchlist options" box. Does it say "Show bots"? If so, then you've hidden all articles that were most recently edited by a bot, including RFC pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Problem solved! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Can originators dictate the scope of RFCs?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no clear consensus for a yes/no answer to this question. The question itself seems on the face of it to be an attempt to legislate WP:CLUE and forcibly prevent thread drift (good luck with that). There are examples where it is appropriate, others where it is not appropriate, approach matters with good judgment and if necessary close any RfC and start again with a new, better question. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

---

How much control may an RFC originator exert over the discussion? Is it appropriate (or should it be so) to actively prohibit alternatives from being proposed by other users and debated in the same discussion? The RFC guidance is silent on the subject of ownership. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• The best answer is a reasonable amount, subject to analysis on a case by case basis. On particularly complex or contentious issues, the only way to succeed in forming a working consensus to move forward may be to exercise some control, and narrowly focus the RFC on a specific proposal. So for example, if the choice is proposal A, or nothing, we may be able to achieve consensus on proposal A. But if there had been 3 more choices, support may have split between all of them, and there may have been no consensus for anything, despite there being consensus that keeping the status-quo, that the result of lack of consensus will cause, is worse than any of the proposals. So basically, you should respect reasonable amounts of RFC ownership by the creator, try to work with the creator to improve it, but the community can override that ownership if enough people feel its necessary. If the RFC is biased in its wording, or something similar, that can be fixed, and is going to be subject to much less deference to the creator than structural choices. Monty₈₄₅ 13:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

By way of example, Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 is a good example of how this can work in practice. It was an RFC on one question, out of many contentious issues that pending changes raised. Should we have it turned on at all? When there was a consensus on that one question, 3 followup RFCs, Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 1, Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 2, and Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 3 where launched to implement that initial consensus. If all the issues, from all the RFCs, had been !voted on in the very first one, there is no way consensus on anything would have been reached. But with careful structuring, the community was able to work out a functioning compromise on a very controversial issue. And it worked pretty well given how little drama has happened since. (At least relative to the drama that has historically surrounded Pending Changes). Monty₈₄₅ 13:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion, do you believe the OP appropriately exercised his powers in this RfC? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The OP merely clarified the heading, before little discussion and no !voting, which is not the question. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Nøkkenbuer was referring to a different RFC where a participant made a new proposal in the discussion section, and the originator shut it down by hidden archive. That was what prompted me to start this RFC, in fact. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I failed to see the link. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of the heading (result: changed)

Comment - It's a good question as stated in your prose. However, the heading is a broader question which I think would be a clear "no". You might wish to re-word the heading to something like "May an RfC's question be modified by discussion?". Or, something more vague that better summarizes the actual question. I'm at a loss there, so absent that I'd just suggest that readers not take the heading literally. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC) @Mandruss: How about, “Do originators control RFCs?” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Still too general, as we're only discussing one specific type of "control". As I said, at a loss. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Heading changed. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) That's an improvement. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Writing up a new RfC and posting it in the middle of an ongoing RfC against the wishes of the author of that RfC is, in my considered opinion, disruptive. Anyone is free to post a new RfC that asks any question they choose. Hijacking an existing RfC -- especially after 50 or so people have responded and it becomes clear that the outcome is not going to go your way -- borders on gaming the system. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Guy Macon. If the question changes, then previous respondents are responding to a question other than what was asked. In my opinion, any significant change to the lede of an RFC after it is published is disruptive. An RFC isn't an article. The question isn't one of ownership, but of consistency in what is being asked. If the original question was wrong, a new RFC can be published, and, if necessary, the previous one killed, but not rewritten. It isn't a matter of ownership, but of consistency. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: What about posing a question after the lead, in the discussion section? Not replacing or changing anything, but adding alternatives. Such is the case that Guy is referring to. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this can be answered in the abstract. A lot depends on the specifics of the RFC - what the original question was and what it was attempting to find out. Sometimes raising alternatives will be helpful and move the discussion forward, while at other times raising alternatives will be disruptful and sidetrack the RFC to the point where we never reach consensus on the original question. Blueboar (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

off-topic—174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This particular RfC concerns "individuals that have no religion". The problem from my point of view is that sources virtually never support a contention that an individual has no religion. Much more commonly sources support that someone is an atheist or an agnostic or something else. From my point of view the RfC in its original conception is malformed, though I suspect 174.141.182.82, as well as others, will differ in their analyses of how the RfC was originally formulated. Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Unless you are of the opinion that atheism is a religion (it isn't, for the same reasons that bald is not a hair color, off is not a TV channel, barefoot is not a shoe, silence is not a sound, never is not a date, clear is not a color, and not collecting stamps is not a hobby), then a source that shows that an individual is an atheist shows that the individual has no religion. Do a searh in article space for "Religion: None" (with the quotes) and you will find hundreds of examples. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Guy Macon—you ask me if I am "of the opinion that atheism is a religion". I am of the opinion that Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. The emphasis in bold lettering was not added by me. What we find in sources is direct support for someone being an atheist. From that you are deriving that they have no religion. There should be direct support for the assertions Wikipedia makes. Therefore we should say that such a person is an atheist. We should not be making a wider assertion. If the reader wishes to derive that the subject of the biography has no religion they can do so but we should not be making such across-the-board assumptions pertaining to all religions. In particular Christianity is more tied to beliefs than Judaism is. A Jew may say that they are an atheist and powerfully sense Jewish identity. It is potentially problematic to place a statement such as "Religion: None" on many articles on Jews when all that is really supported by sources is that the individual is an atheist. Christianity and Judaism are different religions and one need not conform to the other for Wikipedia purposes. Allow the Wikipedia assertion to conform to that which is directly supported by the source and this problem disappears. If a Jewish person says they have no religion then certainly go right ahead and say that in the body of the article or the Infobox. I think that a Jewish person can be an atheist with less inherent contradiction than a Christian person can be an atheist. I think (I'm not sure) that the reason for this is that to a larger extent Judaism is not predicated on believing in anything. But I am not asking for preferential treatment for Jews. All instances of assertions of this nature should cleave to that which is supported by sources. The notion of having no religion also requires a source and in most cases this is missing. Bus stop (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC) If, in your opinion, "Atheist" means something other than "the lack of a religion" (you never quite defined what you think it is; is atheism a religion?) then from your perspective my RfC is fundamentally flawed and no reasonable amount of editing can possibly fix it at this late stage. Your only alternative would seem to be to post an RfC that you believe avoids these flaws. You could even seek a consensus for invalidating the previous RfC and see how much support you get. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to add a bit of extra context to this discussion. This debate recently came up between myself and the IP that started this RFC regarding a sequence of edits at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film on the April 14-15 (I can't be bothered to post the diffs but you can see from the history where I 'spar' with the IP). The IP tried to alter the the RFC introduction and I reverted them, namely because the RFC was at an advanced stage and all of the replies had only considered one particular proposal. In short, I believed that altering the lead-in gave the impression that both proposals had been given due consideration, which was inappropriate. This led to the discussion at User_talk:Betty_Logan#MOS:FILM_RFC_reverts. A third opinion felt I had breached policy by altering another editor's talk page comments, so in the end I tried to restructure the RFC to allow for an alternative proposal and make it clear that which proposal the comments in the discussion releated to. The IP seemed to accept this solution (or at least that was the impression I got at the my talk page). I don't really have much interest in debating the merits of RFC ownership, or indeed whether I acted inappropriately by altering the IP's comments (I accept I breached policy and tried to rectify this the best I could without completely derailing the RFC), but hopefully the links I have provided will enable you to understand the IP's position better. Betty Logan (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In the case Betty’s referring to (diffs: [5][6][7][8][9] and the discussion on her Talk), I had added a second option beneath her timestamped proposal (but above the survey section), making sure that my addition was itself clearly timestamped and distinct from the original post. I mention this because I feel it’s a critical detail that was left out here, making it sound like I’d altered the original proposal instead. Everything else recalled here is completely accurate, and is another example of what I’m seeking to clarify with this RFC. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Some modifications are clearly helpful and do not interfere with the process of determining consensus. Examples from my RfC:[10][11] -- both welcome and helpful. Adding a new RfC in the middle of an existing one or making a change in the description of what it being !voted on after multiple people have supported/opposed the old description (not saying that's what happened here) clearly does interfere with the process of determining consensus. Likewise, my "ground rule" saying not to reply in the support sections. That is clearly helpful, and nobody would have a problem if, upon discovering such a reply, I moved it to the threaded discussion section. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

At DRN and MEDCOM the person controlling the discussion is a neutral party trying to keep the discussion on track and who has an obligation to insure that no one's position is slighted. They're also invested by policy with authority to do more at one of those venues than an editor has the right to do on an article talk page under the talk page guidelines. Having such rights in a RFC, however, where there's often no neutral party, simply invites someone to manipulate the discussion in favor of their preferred point of view. Some limited control allowing refactoring might be okay, but even that could be easily abused, I'm afraid. I think that it's important to remember that, at the end of the day, RFC is really nothing more than another garden-variety talk page discussion with two exceptions: first, the ability of the requesting editor to frame (hopefully narrowly) the initial point to be discussed and, second, a mechanism to invite the broader community to weigh in. (Just to avoid any internal-copyvio issues, let me note that this is is a slightly reworked and expanded version of a post I made at Betty's talk page].) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• As Monty said: The best answer is a reasonable amount, subject to analysis on a case by case basis. RFC initiators have as much (or as little) power and respect as participants give them. If an RFC initiator applies a hidden archive, people could either respect that as constructive, or revert it if it's abusive. If a significant number of participants object to the phrasing or handling of an RFC, that can invalidate the RFC. Sufficient participants can generate valid consensus which totally disregards the original question and disregards attempts at control. If sufficient-participants-to-establish-a-consensus voluntarily abide by RFC-initiator-guidance, everything's probably fine. Alsee (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion on RfC process

I think RfC would work better if we banned threaded discussion and asked each user to comment in their own region.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I find that contributors to the discussion sometimes make good points, which make me change my view. Indeed, I am starting to wonder if my irony detector just failed. 07:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Maproom (talk)

Heh, you and I must read different RfC's. Try this one -- all the threaded discussion makes it difficult to get a sense of how the RfC is going.[12]. I have no objection to people answering each other in their own sections; I find that such discussion makes it a lot easier to skip over certain folks who are throwing more heat than light.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a bit difficult. But RFCs are just normal talk-page discussions, perhaps on a somewhat grander scale than average. You can no more ban threaded discussion from an RFC than you can from a normal talk-page discussion. Also, threaded discussion can be remarkably productive, if you can get people to stop voting and start trying to find things that work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC Notice Template Taskforce

Question: Is there a taskforce established to create and promote new RFC notice templates?

Habatchii (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Habatchii, I'm not aware of any. When do you think a new template would be used? WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What RFC Tag to Use for Military

What RFC tag should be used for military questions? pol and sci seem the "least wrong". Are there other opinions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

hist, if it's about military questions referring to past years; econ if it's about the military-industrial complex; bio for military people; and sci (as you said) for technology and military medicine. It could really be just about anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Changing the Wording of an RFC Other Than by Proponent

I don't see a statement that editors should not change the question at the top of the RFC without consensus or consultation with the proponent. I think that there should be a statement to this effect. This is an unfortunately common form of disruption. In addition to having any previous replies no longer be replying to what was originally posted, it causes work for the bot and may confuse the bot and complicate the result of the RFC. I have seen this done often enough that I don't think that prohibiting changing an RFC non-collaboratively is a case of advising someone not to stick beans in their nose. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think that there are very good grounds for suggesting that nobody should change the wording of an RfC without the express consent of those who have already responded. Even an apparently minor change can prove contentious - or give whoever 'loses' the RfC an excuse for Wikilawyering even if it makes no substantive difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that no one should change the wording of the RFC without express consent. As Jytdog noted above, in the case he mentioned, he did at least provide notice. In the case in point today, an editor actually reversed the wording of the RFC, which had been whether to include a paragraph, and the proponent of including the paragraph reversed its wording to ask whether there was a reason to exclude the paragraph. The obvious problem with that is that it reversed the meanings of the !votes and (until corrected) made them seem ridiculous. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

To my way of thinking, anyone other than the creator of the RfC editing the wording without prior consent is doing so contrary to WP:TPG anyway. Editing other peoples' posts in a manner which changes their intended meaning is the sort of behaviour that frequently leads to immediate blocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. However, an argument can be made that the question of an RFC is a special case, which is why I think that language concerning it in this guideline would be appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this idea is not practical. "Don't change it" sometimes means "let the RFC pages remain broken if the OP doesn't agree to change the question". Also, very long statements sometimes need a very brief 'question' added to the top (for the sake of the bot/central listing pages). And sometimes, the OP isn't handy, but it's clear that you can improve the question without violating its integrity.

One should be slow to change questions without consent, but I don't believe that we should prohibit it. However, it's often desirable for all but very minor or technical changes to not be posted under the OP's name. For example, if a six-paragraph rant gets summarized at the top as "Is X a good source for Y statement?", then that should be posted to the RFC with only the date, not with the OP's name (unless the OP wants to go back and add his/her name later). WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC limit?

I've noticed that certain users bring RfCs with great frequency when they do not get their way on Talk pages. I suggest that each user be given a limit of, say, two RfCs per month, or, perhaps better: you have to stop bringing RfC's for a month if you bring two *unsuccessful* ones (that is, one where the requester's position on the relevant Talk page is not successful) in a row. Or some other kind of limit that would discourage abuse of the RfC process. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There are no limits, but if it becomes disruptive, and gentle education does not seem effective, then blocks or WP:TBANs for WP:Disruptive editing, talk-page abuse, WP:IDHT, and even WP:CIR problems are possible.

Also, it's more complicated than that. Imagine that someone creates 31 RFCs, at a rate of one RFC per day. Assume that all close on the bot's default date rather than a sensible point in the discussion (as chosen by the participants). Assume that all can be classified as "unsuccessful". When the second one finally closes as unsuccessful, there will still be 29 other RFCs in flight... and the ban will expire almost exactly when the last RFC (the one created the day before the ban kicked in) expires.

Rather than creating rules, you're better off seeking individual action on the basis of the real problem (e.g., disruption). (Also, it doesn't happen that often. I think I can remember two such instances over the last half-dozen years, although I know that I haven't seen all cases. But compared to, say, someone trying to use table formatting for the question, it's much rarer.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Amending a proposal in an ongoing RfC

Question. I posted an RfC here asking if a statement is supported by its sources. In the course of the RfC, it became clear that the an amendment to the statement to clarify it, would be useful. So in this dif I amended it using underline redaction, and added a note below it to state that i did that. I then went to the Talk page of each editor who had !voted or commented to give them notice of the change. Some editors are objecting that this is "illegitimate". I don't believe it is and have seen it done before. The RFC instructions are silent on this. So... am I right or wrong? If i am correct, would it be useful to add something on this to the instructions? thx Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

In the case that you mention, you notified the editors who had previously !voted, so that gave them a chance to change their comments. There is a common practice, unfortunately, for a tendentious editor, especially one who thinks that the RFC will go against him, but who knows beyond knowledge that he is "right", either to change the wording of the RFC, or to deface it, such as by inserting a statement above the first question criticizing the RFC. This is very disruptive (and is done precisely as a way to achieve one's will disruptively). I think that they were criticizing what you did because when an RFC is changed, it is usually done disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

In the broader case, people who complain about "non-neutral" or "illegitimate" procedures are usually worried that their side is "losing".

Jytdog, so long as the person who started the RFC doesn't object (because it's possible to 'clarify' a question from "is this a picture of a cat?" into "shall we delete pictures of dogs?"), and people can still make sense of the responses (e.g., not reversing support/oppose !votes), then your approach is a model of transparency. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for replying! Jytdog (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Updating the RfC guidelines to better reflect present usage

While I've not done a detailed statistical count, my impression is that at present RfCs are frequently (most often?) used as vehicles to host community '!votes'. If this is indeed the case, it seems to me it would be wise/pragmatic/kind-to-newbs to adapt the guidelines to better reflect common practice. i.e. To bring de jure more closely in line with de facto. 'Principal-of-least-surprise', etc.

Could be a matter of simply incorporating a few links and/or comments regarding '!votes', initiating a new section to cover the topic more thoroughly, or if feeling adventurous/ambitious revamp the whole page. Thoughts? --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
p.s.— Should we hold a RfC on adapting RfC? It'd be delightfully recursive. <wink> :  } --Kevjonesin (talk)

Kevjonesin, just to make sure: You do realize, don't you, that when there's an RFC that's set up to get in "opposes" or "supports" or other short-form responses that it's still not a vote? A proper consensus evaluation closing that RFC must not only take into account the numbers, but first and more importantly, the quality of the arguments made for and against the proposal. Straw polls, on the other hand, can take place via RFC or in the process of an RFC but can never create consensus (though they can help analyze or focus it). It may be worth mentioning here that RFC's can do those things in regard to straw polls, but it needs to be done pretty specifically so as not to suggest that RFC's can be used to determine things by voting and, frankly, I have to wonder if that's just not too fine-pointish to be worth the effort. Best regards (and I like your humor), TransporterMan (TALK) 15:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan. Yes, I have some awareness of the official dogma/'wikidealism' surrounding such; hence my use of (and link to) the term "!vote". I'm not sure though how well (whether?) present common practice really coincides with such.

As a 'side note', I came across the origin story for the term "!vote" yesterday while wandering about—and found it somewhat amusing.[13][14] It would appear that there is some precedence for feelings of Orwellian dissonance regarding these things. :  }

"Remember, folks, voting is evil, but !voting is perfectly acceptable. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)"[15]

I'm not proposing anything so radical as officially overturning the underlying dogma that 'we do not vote'. However, I would like to more clearly and explicitly express to those coming to this page for guidance that there are in fact in common practice a variety of procedures involving editors explicitly expressing opinions 'for' and 'against' various proposals—which often carry not-insignificant weight in the process of determining and implementing 'consensus'—which frequently take place under the auspices of a 'request for comments'.

If an archetypical 'reasonable person', previously unfamiliar with Wikipedia lore, were to thoroughly peruse WP:RFC/A for a time and then start making inferences, what might they infer? I'm proposing that we explore ways in which to address such inferences a bit more forthrightly in our guidelines. --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the problems with officially enshrining this approach is that it would make it happen even more often (which is not necessarily desirable) and that it would fail to highlight the differences between the English Wikipedia and most of the others, where actual votes and usually strict majority rule are typical. (Your comment in an RFC elsewhere is mostly an effort to persuade subsequent people to vote along with you, not to share your views.)

I'm leaning mostly "no" to this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think a lot depends on what the purpose of the specific RFC is... In some cases, the purpose is simply to assess whether a consensus exists on a disputed issue (and if so, to determine what that consensus is). This type of RFC usually takes the form of a quick support/oppose !vote... with comments explaining why participants hold the view that they do. This format makes sense if all we are trying to do is get a quick assessment of opinions.

In other cases, however, the purpose is to actually achieve a consensus... this type of RFC usually takes the form of a (often rambling) discussion, with different editors suggesting different ways to resolve the dispute.

Of course, if the editors who file the RFC are not clear what the purpose of the RFC actually is, then the resulting format will be equally confused... with some editors !voting, and others discussing.

Perhaps we could do a better job of explaining how RFCs with different purposes can be formatted in different ways... and which format works best for different purposes.

I find it is often helpful to intentionally create a series of "phased" RFCs. Set things up so everyone knows that there will be two back-to-back, related, RFCs... the phase one RFC (in !vote format) designed to assess whether there is a consensus (or not); and the phase two RFC (in discussion format) designed to figure out what to do next (if anything) - given the results of the assessment from phase one. The key is to clearly state the purpose of each "phase" in the RFC postings... If you do it right, you often get a productive RFC, with few objections. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think that one of the causes of the increased tendency to "vote" is that the "good examples" on the page are focused on binary questions. You either change that picture or you don't; there's no middle ground or compromise position. I wonder if you could come up with an example that would show a good (=likely to result in productive conversation, not too vague) question that doesn't have a 'pick one option' result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. Blueboar (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You might also want to look at the newly created Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible update on closing RFCs

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#Requesting closing statements for archived discussions about whether this page and/or WP:Talk page guidelines should be changed to discourage editors from making routine requests for closing statements to be added to archived discussions. The general idea is that if a discussion was archived weeks ago, and you don't actually care about the discussion or need help understanding the result (so excluding anyone dealing with a dispute related to that, etc.), then you should neither request nor provide a formal closing statement directly in the talk-page archives (where nobody will see it anyway).

If you have ideas about whether this page or TPG would be a better place to clarify the best practice or ideas of what the best practice is, then please join the discussion there. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Need assistance new article [Fire Urgency Estimation From Geosynchronous Orbit]]

Please help create some new article Fire Urgency Estimator in Geosynchronous Orbit (FUEGO).

INFO AVAILABLE HERE: https://www.ssl.berkeley.edu/fire-urgency-estimator-in-geosynchronous-orbit-fuego/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.35.49 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Friend, the proper forum to do this is Requested articles. This page is to discuss the Requests for Comment process. 331dot (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)