This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Having tried to use RFCs in an area of heavy nationalist dispute and seen them used by others in similar situations, I found that the process was utterly useless. The main problem was that as soon as one was opened, all the involved editors on both sides show up with their predictable responses. Any genuinely neutral outsiders (and there are frequently none) are drowned out and the RFC descends into the same farce it was meant to overcome.

Having given this some thought, I considered there could be a few ways of solving this issue:

1. Tweak the wording of the RFC page. At present it states that it is a "process for requesting outside input". However, it is clear from my experience that inside input is often the vast majority (if not all) of the input when an RFC is requested. Perhaps the wording could be changed to make it clear that only outside input is acceptable, and aside from a short rebuttal section (100 words?), input from editors involved in the area (it's always pretty clear whether an editor is an involved party in the disputed areas) is not warranted under the RFC heading (of course, it can be made in a separate section on the talk page, but the RFC section should be left for outside views only). The RFC question should be neutrally worded and if there is one, link to the section where the "inside" discussion is taking place so that outsiders can read the whole discussion and evidence before making a decision. The "rebuttal section" is to counter concerns that the person requesting the RFC may not necessarily do it in a neutral manner.
2. If this is not appropriate (as in some areas that are not battlegrounds RFCs may function well), then perhaps a second process (perhaps RFCOCO - "outside comment only") could be set up that does specifically ban inside comment to deal with problematic areas.

No doubt this will be shot down in flames, but given the current situation where either small inside groups with the same POV can dominate RFCs, or two balanced inside groups can spin them into thousands of words of text without resolving anything, I think some action is required to ensure outside views are able to make an impact. Number 5 7 00:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, those who are already involved have well-developed arguments that are useful to outsiders who may not understand all the nuances of the issue. Having insiders explain their positions is most valuable. I don't think an outsider-only discussion wouldn't be that helpful.

May be you can think of a way to limit insider/insider interaction while still allowing insider/outsider interaction. Joja lozzo 00:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned, the RFC question should link to a section where the insiders' debate is taking place, so that outsiders can read through the whole thing before commenting. Number 5 7 00:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps have two sections for RFC responses - involved and uninvolved? Number 5 7 00:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any official rule for how to format an RFC. If you want to mimic the format used in User RFCs for a content discussion you can do so. In that format users add statements, usually identifying themselves as involved or not, and other users add their sigs with a brief statement if they agree with that view. Threaded discussion is done seperately on the talk page, but if there is no dedicated talk or you are already on a talk page you can just add a separate section for it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with user:Number_57 in that RfC's are meant to draw outside input and insiders are overly involved. Insiders engaging in a discussion under the RfC banner defeats the purpose of the RfC by discouraging outsider comment. Insider comments should take place elsewhere on the talk page so as to not discourage outsiders from sharing their opinions.

I also agree with user:Jojalozzo in that involved editors have developed opinions that are important to the discussion. But again, that discussion belongs on the talk page, and not in a section dedicated to securing outside comments. I think many RfC's provide an opportunity for a fresh start in a discussion that has failed to reach consensus, but that fresh start discussion should take place away from the section where outside users are trying to provide neutral comments. To reiterate an RfC section is for comments, a talk page is for discussion.

I think the problem that Number_57 is getting at is the difficulty of the discussions that come out of the RfC process. I have noticed that often there are too many editors in a discussion for a fruitful discussion to take place and that the RfC contributors often provide non-neutral comments. Inherently an RfC banner can cause or worsen the problem of too many cooks. I think it would be helpful to recommend for the removal of a RfC banner in cases where it hampers the consensus process. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathlon ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with removing the RFC banner is that it then leaves the discussions to the "insiders", who are the ones who have caused the problems in the first place. Number 5 7 10:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

At Talk:Demi Moore#A specific proposal, three of the four remaining editors after weeks of debate have agreed to a wording. Here is a copy of my post there today saying that I would like to have an admin give "a disinterested outside opinion" on whether consensus had, in fact been reached.

Three editors — myself, AndyTheGrump and λόγος — have agreed on a wording ... bridging, may I say, significant differences over a large amount of time and effort in order to reach a good-faith compromise together. At this point, I think it's fair to go to the RfC noticeboard for this item and ask if an admin would look at this and offer a disinterested outside opinion.

Here again is Andy's wording, which has garnered support from λόγος and myself:

   "Some sources give Moore's birth name as Demetria,[4 representative footnotes] others as Demi[Stuart's 4 representative footnotes]. Moore says the latter is correct.[2 tweets plus Bang Showbiz]."?

-- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't thos recently at Arbcom? Did they reject the case? Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. ARB asked us to go through the protocol steps, and several editors have been involved in this RfC since Dec. 27, after debating informally since Nov. 30. I'm proud of the fact that AndyTheGrump and myself, who started with what seemed like an insurmountable gap, kept working and working at it until finding common ground. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And things appear to be getting heated again. An admin coming to take a look at the compromise wording(s) would be a very constructive thing at this point. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 14:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As of today, the RfC has reached 20,000 words dating from the RfC's initiation on Dec. 27. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 16:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You are more likely to find an admin to WP:CLOSE the discussion if you make a request at WP:AN. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Would an admin please come and close this RfC? Debate has died down, consensus seems clear, and it is time to move on. See Talk:2011#Request_for_Comment:_Mohamed_Bouazizi_and_the_Occupy_movement_additions. Wrad ( talk) 17:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If everyone agrees, you don't need to have the discussion formally WP:CLOSEd. But if you think it would be helpful, then you should probably make that request at WP:AN, which is watched by far more admins. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Wrad ( talk) 17:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a question at WP:AN today about suspending an RFC/U due to the subject saying that he's leaving Wikipedia. This comes up maybe twice a year, usually in the context of worries about someone trying to game the system by taking a wikibreak and hoping that no one will care if they come back next month, but sometimes due to temporary circumstances, like someone getting blocked for a week over something unrelated. (It seems unfair and ineffective to continue dispute resolution when the subject can't participate.)

I thought it might be worth briefly describing how to "suspend" an RFC/U, but I can't decide where to put the information. Maybe at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing or at Wikipedia:RFC/U#Closing_and_archiving? And should it get an entry in the archives or not? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a "yes, this happens sometimes" statement at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User_conduct/Closing#Suspending_RfCs, but it needs to be expanded with the preferred procedure for accomplishing this. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents has been nominated for deletion. Please join the discussion. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The MfD has been withdrawn so the discussion has moved to this page. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The current RfC/U on Fae is one of a long line of big, ugly, unproductive affairs that can't stay on topic (doesn't really have a topic) and doesn't know when to end. I think we need to reform the RfC/U process. Heck, I'm thinking maybe RfC/U belongs at MfD. It's a page that doesn't accomplish anything but raising a lot of hard feelings. But I think a few simple Human Rights for Editors might fix much of the problem.

1. The subject of an RfC/U should have the right to close discussion at any time. Just say "take it to AN/I or ArbCom if you think you have a case" and it ends. In an encyclopedia with "WP:no personal attacks" how can we have these giant ad hominem fests except by an editor's permission? If there's not going to be a voluntary resolution this process has no purpose.
2. The subject of the RfC/U likewise should have the right to strike out (or delete) inappropriate charges and irrelevant content. Ideally, he should propose it and get some people to agree with him, but in accordance with the last principle the process should only go ahead where the subject is willing to put up with it. Essentially, this process should become an extension of the User talk: page in that regard - people don't have to put up with nonsense. Likewise, the subject should have the right to strike out certain details (such as their real name) that bother them.
3. The "desired outcome" of an RfC/U must be sufficient. If five editors are going to take someone to task for some kind of bad editing, and ask that he voluntarily withdraw from one topic area or give up a privilege as a remedy, then this should mean that as long as he does so, they're not going to complain about him again, for anything that was mentioned during the RfC/U process. In fact, their agreement to the RfC/U outcome should be interpreted as actual !votes against further sanction in any subsequent administrative process. Think of it like a plea bargain - once you plead out, you don't get hit with more charges. Otherwise what's the point? That's why these things fizzle out and don't end, there's no carrot for the stick. You can't say the person's editing hasn't been looked at enough by that point. Now, there is a problem here in that the "desired outcome" could change during the process as facts come out; I think that it should not become more onerous after some early stage in the proceeding.

I'm not sure this list of rights is enough, but it's a start. Wnt ( talk) 13:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to take your first point last: RFCs are non-binding as they are intended to solicit a voluntary agreement. Therefore, those bringing the complaint are no more bound by it than the subject of those complaints. Can't have it both ways, so no there cannot be any such restriction.

Backing up to the other two points: hell no. If an RFC subject feels they are being unfairly attacked, they are free to say so. If they do not wish to participate at all they are free to do that, and the RFC will end with no result as it cannot succeed if they do not participate. Giving the subject control over what others can say and the right to unilaterally remove any comment they don't like is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. If there are serious problems with a specific RFA the right thing to do is to contact outside parties and ask for assistance. This has already been done in the case you refer to, although that may be less than obvious on-wiki. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I just added a second topic to the {{ rfc}} template at Talk:Richard Dawkins. Will the bot pick up on this? [1] __ meco ( talk) 13:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It already has. The bot runs a couple of times an hour, so you have to wait for it to wake up and notice the change. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be quite helpful if the instructions on the RfC asked people to provide source and brief summaries for content disputes in RfC. To many times I see an RfC such as "Was Jesus a Palestinian?" and nothing but opinions in the following 500 lines. RfC's would be much easier to respond to if there was a reserved section for sources and summaries AND people were advised to fill out these sections when starting the RfC. Gsonnenf ( talk) 11:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here that the RfC posting tool seems to be dead. EyeSerene ^talk 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I recently added an RFC request to Talk:Talbot Hobbs#Effect of the redevelopment plans, and RFC bot appears to have processed my request. However the article doesn't seem to appear on either of the requested lists: Biographies and Politics/govt/law. Is there a technical problem with the bot? Mitch Ames ( talk) 09:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

wht do you think other countries within SSA view South Africa and South African Businesses.Do you belive they trust us and can do business or merely see us a MINI colonisers of the continent — Preceding unsigned comment added by NM-Ntuli ( talk • contribs) 13:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We have thousands of subpages, and no categorisation scheme. I can appreciate that we may not want to categorise RFC/U, however there are many other types of RFCs which are given a dedicated RFC subpage. In May 2009, the issue of categorisation/archiving of RFCs was raised. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_10#Archive_of_past_RfCs. We have an archive of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion ( Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive); does it include all subpages?

For the moment, I've placed a few RFCs in Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee archives and . John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 07:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about how important this is, but perhaps we could categorize RfC/U pages by the year they were initially opened. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be a useful approach. It at least breaks the list up a bit. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

How does one close an RFC? My RFC was delisted by the bot, but now what?-- Taylornate ( talk) 04:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You can just leave it, or consider using {{ discussion top}}. If it is likely to be a contentious summary ask at WP:ANI for an independent administrator to close and summarise the RfC. -- PBS ( talk) 09:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI, which was requested by the Arbitration Committee, has essentially been inactive for a week. It will be a messy RfC to close, but I think it is quite important that somebody do it correctly. Smallbones ( talk) 03:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the process described for requesting comment on users apply to a an editor using an IP address? If not, what process does apply? Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Is RfC only for requesting more opinions during a dispute, or can it be used when nobody responds to a talk page discussion and being bold would be inappropriate. Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 01:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a request for comments -- if that is what you want, then it is a proper course to take. Collect ( talk) 01:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This was added by Moff Wolf ( talk · contribs) Left a message on his talk page - Is it a misplaced RfC?
The following discussion has been closed by Coastside. Please do not modify it.
Durban University of Technology's students are complaining about NSFAS, Student accomodation, and the way they are treated by lectures some students believe that Apartheid was not accomplished on the 27th of April but instead it was only the beging they even mentioned racial prejudisim has started to become a huge matter at DUT never the less some studentes are happy to be at DUT. Early this year SASCO(which is the organisation that fights for students rights) dicided to go on strik because they were not happy about the dicision that was taken by NSFAS thing, they said to believe that SRC is sleeping with the managnment of DUT for something in return and they have forgoten about student who they represent as the SRC. the president of SASCO at DUT said they do not mean any bad thing about protesting they only want their voices to be heard by the managnment of DUT and he said he will do anything for his students to get a better education. NSFAS was blamed by many students because it did not providing tuition funds to them early.

Coastside ( talk) 20:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

moved to Talk:Wisconsin_gubernatorial_recall_election#Intrade
The following discussion has been closed by Coastside. Please do not modify it.
Should election speculator and election predictor data be placed on Election Wiki pages? Protaganists state (Should be included) because: "A lack of Intrade articles elsewhere does not preclude its use here" "Prediction and Speculatory Markets are commonly used for elections and analyzed by academics, the media, and people, AND are trying to answer the same question raw Polls are." "My take is that if a polling section is appropriate, so is mention of intrade. Both are used for predicting an outcome, though their methodology differs." "The information is sourced, and relevant." Antagonists state (Should not be included) because: "There is not a single election article here on Wikipedia that has intrade predictions on it." "any predictions, be they Intrade or professional firms, have no value in an encyclopedia as they add nothing to the scholarly discussion of this topic." "Poll aggregators use polling data from actual registered voters and other information from that state to make predictions. Intrade lets members who might not even be in the state decide the prediction." Traditional polling is currently in place Talk page is located at the Talk:Wisconsin_gubernatorial_recall_election,_2012 talk page, under Intrade [ [2]] Patriot1010 ( talk) 18:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Coastside ( talk) 21:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not the right page to post RfCs
The following discussion has been closed by Coastside. Please do not modify it.
Crime Story (film) is being maliciously edited in spite of my providing sources for no good reason Dwanyewest ( talk) 21:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Dwanyewest, first you need to attempt to resolve this at Talk:Crime Story (film). If that does not resolve the issue, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for instructions as to what to do next. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Coastside ( talk) 15:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not the right page to post RfCs
The following discussion has been closed by Coastside. Please do not modify it.
The issue is involving a dispute over what flags should be used in the template, the two flags have political connotations, and we need help on achieving either a compromise, or something because the users there including me are getting very frustrated with each other. The issue is here. [3] There are three ways you can go with this. If you think that the issue will be helped by having some outside editors weigh in, then a RfC is the way to go. You didn't quite get the format right on this one. Try reading Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment through talk pages and carefully following the instructions there. If you think that the problem is 100% user behavior with no dispute about the actual content of the page, go to WP:WQA. If you think that the problem is a dispute over content that you cannot resolve and you don't think an RfC will help, go to WP:DRN. In all cases, read the instructions at the top of the pages carefully and follow them. You would be amazed at how many editors don't. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Coastside ( talk) 15:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added an exception in a footnote to allow an RFC to be used in the case where a user has made a good-faith effort to get another editor to discuss an edit, but has received no response. All content dispute resolution processes require discussion before requesting DR and requests are routinely dismissed or closed if no discussion has taken place. Failure to respond to a request to discuss is not defined as disruptive editing, so an editor faced with continual reversions despite his or her requests to discuss the proposed edits must either edit war or give up. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Prior to this overall revision in 2006 the requirement was that one must "try" to discuss the matter before filing an RFC. This revision, in effect, restores that qualification. — TM 18:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the edit because I feel that it is not relevant to the RfC system. Curb Chain ( talk) 07:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested an RFC for this page a few days ago and haven't had a response from an outside editor yet (by outside, I mean someone who has never contributed edits to this page). If someone could take a look and leave some comments, that would be great. JDC808 ( talk) 02:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Try inviting people at relevant WP:Wikiprojects to respond. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have some text I would like to insert into the Vassula Ryden article, under the Supporters section based on an excerpt of a book. The text in the book appears as follows:

The late Archbishop Franic of Split, for years the head of the Yugoslav Catholic Bishops’ Conference and an expert on mystical phenomena, wrote strongly in favor of Ryden. He expressed the astonishment shared by many theologians and church leaders who cannot understand how a normal woman who never received theological training can write down messages whose beauty and profundity stand out among contemporary spiritual writings. ^[1]

The book an approved RS on the RSN. I would like to know - how I can insert the information quoted above, without infringing on copyright policy? Do I reword the text? Do I say "Hvidt (the author) claims"? Whats the normal way to go about quoting a source? Thanks. Arkatakor ( talk) 16:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Sounds like promotional fluff of no encyclopedic value, loaded up with WP:PEACOCK phrases. Sorry, but it doesn't belong in WP, even if attributed to Hvidt. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 16:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• This isn't the way to request comments. You need to ask your question at Talk:Vassula Ryden. If the regular editors at the article can't agree, then go to WP:RFC and follow the written directions. In general, however, you should always write in your own words, except when including a direct quotation (which must be marked with quotation marks so that readers know exactly which words are being copied from the source). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Ok thanks for the input - I was not ware that this was done thru the talk page. Will do so promptly. Arkatakor ( talk) 19:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

i am currently putting the finishing touches to a request for comment for the article Rangers F.C

so my questions

firstly the request for comment outcome will affect the decision on about 50+ articles as they need to be edited to convey teh same information. so do i need ot put the request for ocmment on them all?

secondly the content dispute is quite a serious one in teh fact nither side is willign to back down, so i am hoping outside input will help, but i am hoping to amke it like Request for ADminship that to say there consensus something like 75% of the response to each question must be for one side of the the question or the other ie agree or disagree before a consensus coudl be said has been reached am i allowed ot do this>?-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 22:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Put the RFC on one article's talk page. Follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Advertisement_of_RfCs to let suitable groups of other editors know about it. You might want to consider notifying editors at each of the ~50 articles, although technically they are not going to be bound by what ever decision is made at article #1.
2. You may not impose conditions like a supermajority requirement for consensus. You may, if it seems helpful, leave a note at WP:AN to ask for someone to formally WP:CLOSE the discussion. I do not recommend doing this for at least two weeks after the start of the RFC, however. (RFCs run until resolved, but the bot will take your RFC off the centralized lists after 30 days, because most are resolved sooner than that, and people forget to de-list them manually. But you don't want to close too soon, because that makes people think that you're worried that if they have another few days to think about it, then they'll disagree with you.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the input i will update teh request for comment i am doing, i waas inteneding let it run the full month and possible extend it to give peopel more time to change ther emind and find it, i know what you mean about not being bound but i am now finding more and more articles affected by this dispute like newco its not directly related to it but it meantion sometihng to do with this dispute so need updating depending on waht the outcome is but that could easily be sorted via more discussion at those pages

I signed of for the feedback request service, asking for RfCs in the areas of maths, science, and technology. I specifically do not want to see Rfcs on politics. Why am I being asked to comment on Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter? How is that a math, science, or technology issue? If Barack Obama uses a telephone, that doesn't make the topic telecommunications. If he drives a car, that does not make the topic highway engineering. If he flies in an airplane, that does not make the topic aerospace.

If a human is sorting these into categories, they really need to not tag something like Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter as a maths, science, and technology RfC. If it's an algorithm that is doing the tagging, it needs tweaking. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

They're sorted manually, primarily by the people opening the RFC. Twitter, being an Internet service, was probably someone's idea of "technology". You are free to ignore requests that don't interest you. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Two people at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bittergrey have made talk page comments indicating that they're uncertain about RFC/U procedural issues. It might be good if one of the experienced hands would keep an eye on it and answer any procedural questions that come up. I'd offer to do it myself, but I may decide to be an active participant rather than a process gnome for this one. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:Requests for comment/Youreallycan needs help ASAP. It's got threaded comments throughout, including edit-warring to keep such comments in the section reserved for the exclusive use of the subject's response [4] [5] [6], as well as multiple sections for people to oppose views. I think that this needs multiple people helping the participants read and follow the directions, or we're going to end up with an RFC/U that requires full protection (thus making it useless for resolving the dispute). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In various discussions (including several RFC/U's) I have seen the opinion expressed that RFC/U's are useless and a waste of time. From my observation of several "high-profile" RFC/U's that would appear to be the case, based on the fact that the inevitable outcome of the RFC/U seems to be that there is then a request for arbitration. I am wondering whether there are any actual statistics on this, in other words, what percentage of RFC/U's result in a "resolution" of the dispute over the user's conduct, and what percentage are followed closely (say, within 6 months) by a request for arbitration. Neutron ( talk) 17:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the percentage of useful ones has declined, as has the overall number of cases. I think we are seeing more proposals for community bans at WP:AN. I've seen a small number of useful cases over the years, including at least one in which a disruptive editor really seemed to figure out (finally) why everyone was mad at him. I've also seen a few in which disruptive editors issue resignation manifestos and appear to leave (to general satisfaction), and a few in which the disruptive editor gets blocked without having to move on to another forum (also to general satisfaction). There are also a few in which the named subject really did nothing wrong, and that is determined and the dispute settled. I can think of one that amounts to a partial positive settlement: a user agreed not to reduce his use of foul language, although there were other issues left unresolved. But I agree that many seem to be primarily a moment to organize diffs and refine arguments on the way to ArbCom. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody answered my last question, so maybe somebody (or nobody) will answer this one: The rules about RFC/U's say: "Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified"." On some RFC/U pages (and their talk pages) there has been some discussion of whether a certifier was involved in "the same dispute" with the subject as the initiator of the RFC/U was. But why does this requirement exist at all? If someone is involved in many different disputes with many different editors, but no "second person" desires to certify the RFC/U with regard to a specific dispute, why can't the RFC/U proceed. There is one going on now where it is obvious that literally dozens if not hundreds of editors have had some interaction with the subject, which they believe warrants some sort of sanction. And the subject has been blocked multiple times for various conduct. Should that not be enough? Obviously there is reason, in that case, to invite comments about the user in order to inform him/her of ways in which he/she can be a "good citizen", and if the advice is not accepted, the next step can be arbitration. But as it is now, if an RFC/U is closed because the "second certifier" could not be found, even though there are many people who have had disputes with the person, when it gets to arbitration, ArbCom is likely to decline the request because there was no RFC. This sounds like a "dispute aggravation process" rather than a "dispute resolution process" to me. How about eliminating the requirement that the "second certifier" be involved in "the same dispute", and just change it to "a dispute with the same editor"? And, by the way, despite my use of an unspecified example above (the identity of which is probably clear), I have no dog in that fight, or any other that is going on. I just want the process to be better. Neutron ( talk) 21:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you're right about the problem that this can create, but I believe that the requirement is based on the idea that I might not believe any given person, but if multiple people tell me to stop doing something, I might feel "outvoted", as it were, and actually stop. And then we can skip all the tedious business about filing and certifying and discussing and being dissatisfied with the outcome. It isn't hard to arrange two attempts, after all:

Imagine that I'm screwing up reference formatting on articles, and a dozen people have told me to stop it on a dozen different articles. When you come around to tell me to stop it, too, you should see the names of a bunch of other people telling me to stop it. All you really need to do is add your voice to theirs (on one of their articles) or to drop a note to them asking them to add their voice to yours (on the article you're interested in), and you've got two people making an attempt to resolve the same problem at the same article.

As for why multiple separate disputes (really separate, not just the same bad behavior on several pages: he was rude to me, screwed up formatting here, spammed there, created a hoax here, etc.) don't "count", you can't have a coherent discussion of a dozen unrelated problems. If you have a dozen truly separate problems, then you actually need to have a dozen separate discussions and resolutions. A certain amount of focus is necessary. You're not going to get anywhere if a dozen people are saying "Well, I don't much care about the problems everyone else is experiencing, but..." WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm dealing with a situation and have been looking for guidance how best to deal with non-neutrality in RfC statements. Obviously it would be best of the RfC had been mutually written by those in disagreement to arrive at neutral language, but that doesn't always happen.

So specifically with talk page RfCs does WP:Neutrality override WP:TPO in an RfC or can we add something that gives some emphasis how important neutral language is so that rewording by others may be needed to have a balance statement(s) to operate from for a healthy discussion? And what is the best process to approach that rewording? Insomesia ( talk) 23:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any specific guideline for this situation that says NPOV does or does not override TPO. In this case, I'd look to WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. Some approaches to consider are:

1. Be bold and change the RfC wording directly.
2. Ask the RfC originator to reword it
3. Immediately below the RfC statement, add your suggested alternative
4. Respond to the RfC with a comment, and explain your concerns within your response.

Approach (1) is probably the best thing to try initially ... but it should be done before there are any comments posted at the RfC. (2) Is also great, but the problem there is that a day or 2 may go by before the RfC gets re-worded, and other editors may reply to the original RfC wording, which means the RfC wording cannot be changed (or else the replies become obsolete). I've seen (3) done several times: it is effective, and doesn't run the risk of edit warring like (1) might. What specific RfC are you referring to? -- Noleander ( talk) 23:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The first diff was here where I was bold but in hindsight there was already some comments. I think (3) might have worked somewhat but the phrase was removed for being not neutral and false so I still think (1) worked best to deal with what seemed like a clearly non-neutral statement. Insomesia ( talk) 23:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'd add that writing a good, neutral RfC statement is difficult. Assuming good faith, it is most likely that the originator just had a tough time getting the wording just right. -- Noleander ( talk) 23:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be determined that their take was a neutral one and that it should be restored in full. I'm not convinced they will ever be in agreement with the edit, and I'm not likely to agree with it being re-added so we may have to see if Guy Macon's offer the look at it has any agreeable outcome. Getting back to my initial questions, I'm wondering if the RFC page should strengthen that a statement that is perceived as not neutral is subject to follow-up edits. As well I think it might make sense to insert some text about what to do if you perceive a statement to not be neutral. Insomesia ( talk) 00:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this guideline should encourage changing an RfC statement (for many reasons: other editors may have already replied to the original wording; may lead to edit warring; the original may be more neutral than the modified; some editors may take too much liberties, etc etc). So, if this guideline were modified, I'd recommend some safe statement like: "If you feel that the RfC statement is incomplete or not neutral, you may add a statement immediately below the original statement (but do not modify the original statement)." Something like that would be effective, yet low-risk. -- Noleander ( talk) 02:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You should not change someone else's signed question, even if it's non-neutral. You may suggest changes, and you may explain why you think it inappropriate, but you can't change someone else's comments to say something that he didn't mean (and nobody else gets to change yours).

A few years ago, someone proposed a sort of he said/she said format that I think is useful for these situations. It is basically a template that provides two people (or groups, I suppose) a side-by-side opportunity to make a statement about their views. I don't know what happened to it, but if you imagine a two-column, one-row table, you'll have a basic picture of it. I think it would be useful for many RFCs. (I don't know how well the bot would cope with the formatting.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Getting back to the original question... NPOV is an article content policy. It applies to article text, not to talk pages and RfCs. TPO is a behavioral policy. It applies to talk pages, and not to the text of an article. There is no overlap... so, I don't see how NPOV could "over ride" TPO. Blueboar ( talk) 14:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

  I've wondered for a while if we should ditch the "neutral" language, which is a source of needless contentiousness, and perhaps substitute a long footnote about obviously biased questions and the boomerang effect. Or perhaps we should write a supplement on how to write a decent question. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

AH... now I see where the confusion came from... the instructions for step 2 said: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue." The problem is that the word "neutral" was linked to our WP:NPOV policy... which has nothing to do with RFCs.

We could resolve this by delinking ... but I think we can get the point across better (ie without the possibility of confusion) by substituting a synonym word: "Unbiased" (a word which does not have a WP Policy attached to it). I have been bold and made the change. Revert if you disagree. Blueboar ( talk) 17:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

To me that seems like dodging the issue a bit. Of course we want RfCs to be presented neutrally so that improvements to the article are done in a spirit of collaboration what's best for the article. Non-neutral RfCs foment angst and sidetrack from the process. Whether it states neutral or unbiased I still think we must have something clear that directs what to do if there is a perceived bias to the statement. I think the first step is asking that the statement be adjusted followed by a signed dispute statement under the RfC if agreement is not reached. Insomesia ( talk) 19:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that an RFC is worded in a biased manner, the way to handle it is to leave a comment pointing out the bias, not to summarily change the original wording without the consent of the person who posted it. Blueboar ( talk) 19:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, now we need the WP:RFC page to spell that out, here is how to handle this perceived issue. I was specifically looking for some guidance on the page and the sole instruction was that the statement should be neutral (now unbiased). So what is the best practice when an editor perceives a statement to be too biased for a healthy discussion? I think this should be clearly stated. Insomesia ( talk) 20:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is essentially what I said at ANI, you make a note of the bias within the RFC (or vote abstain with rationale as a protest to the wording), you approach the editor who created the RFC and ask them to change it, but you don't modify it yourself. I'm not sure we need a policy outlining this, as I thought this was already understood, you don't modify someone else's talk comment, and this qualifies under that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Now let's start talking about the issues that make it "a bit more complicated than that":

• You shouldn't change a talk page comment—except for the reasons authorized at WP:TPG, e.g., libel.
• You shouldn't change a signed talk page comment—but not all RFC questions are signed by an individual.
• You shouldn't change a talk page comment—but some RFC questions have formatting that breaks the bot.
• You shouldn't change a talk page comment—but some RFC questions are enormously long.
• You shouldn't change a talk page comment—but some RFCs are missing their time stamps.

So there are times when you have to change an RFC question, or substitute a brief one above the existing long one. I'm not sure that we really want to have a long section on all the details and complications as part of this page. What's the minimum amount of information that would be useful? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And for the record I'm again not disputing what should be done, I stating that the WP:RFC page needs to do what it can to spell out some guidance in this area, even with the many variables that may be involved. Insomesia ( talk) 22:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Simple: Don't change someone else's comments, unless WP:IAR applies. All the exceptions you gave fit under IAR. Instruction creep is a bad thing, and most people should simply know "don't change another person's comments" unless their is a damn good reason that isn't articulated in policy, but is still within the spirit of existing policy. No need to make it harder than it needs to be. This is why WP:IAR exists, so we can use common sense and don't have to document every possible scenario and turn policies into something the size of the US tax code. All of this started with a slightly biased RFC question, which was dealt with quickly, demonstrating the system works as is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  So it sounds like you would support a statement like "You should not normally change the question that someone else has asked." Does that sound right to you, and would it be enough for everyone else? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I think that's a start but doesn't address how to handle a situation, I think and additional statement about what to do would make sense. Insomesia ( talk) 20:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, I was operating under common sense, that an RfC should be neutral, I removed a phrase I thought prejudiced the outcome of the RfC. I handled my perception that the RfC was in violation of WP:N (now "unbiased"-ness) by changing the RfC. I think the WP:RfC page needs to provide guidance not just "don't change someone else's ___" but some ideas what can you do if you feel it's an issue. Insomesia ( talk) 20:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In the past I had had similar problems with an AfD (See here), there was no statement for why it should be deleted, so some were of the opinion to keep for the technical reason of no AfD statement. One of those in favour of keeping (for other reasons) argued that retroactively putting a statement at the top was a breach of the AfD procedure..... Anyway although the points raised above are valid, I do not think that putting a statement in chronological order somewhere on the page about the content of the wording of the RfC or the AfD or whatever is a sensible solution to such a problem, the content of the debate should be about the proposed RfC issue raised in the nomination not the content of the nomination. Instead I propose that there is a subsection/area for alternative nominations placed intimately after nomination. In this reserved area (whether it is a formal subsection can be debated further) other editors can place one alternative nomination statement (not criticisms of the nomination and no right to make a second statement or any comments in this area). This would address the issue, with little change in the current process or customs regarding the refactoring of other editors comments.

This is copy (with modifications) based on the layout used "Request comment on users". -- PBS ( talk) 08:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This was the idea that I followed as suggested previously in this thread. I made a statement, tried to present it neutrally, why I felt there was an issue and what it was. This was made after the initial RfC statement, after the section closing parameter so it didn't conflict with bot reporting. Insomesia ( talk) 20:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've boldly added (wording from section above this one)

• If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add a clarifying comment immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC if you disagree with it.

to the section on Suggestions for responding. Insomesia ( talk) 20:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have altered the wording from "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add a clarifying comment immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC if you disagree with it." to "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased." because (1) We do not want debates on the wording of the type "this RfC is biased", "Oh no its not", "Oh yes it is". (2) There are times when an RfC should be closed, and we do not want the clause being used to justify keeping open an inappropriate RfC. -- PBS ( talk) 09:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur that is an improvement in the wording. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. Insomesia ( talk) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any way of reviewing archived RfC's by topic, only users. How can this be fixed? Viriditas ( talk) 20:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of an old RFC that you would like to be able to find? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Ending" section seems to be missing a lot of important guidance. It should plainly state things like:

1. Default duration of an RfC is 30 days, although can be longer or shorter if there is consensus.
2. After 30 days, the RfC bot will automatically remove the RfC from the RfC list.
3. [combine with #11 below] - The originator of an RfC can close it at any time, such as when they have received sufficient response to address the issue; or no more response is forthcoming. Manually closing the RfC involves assessing if there was consensus or not; and if there was consensus: documenting what the consensus was.
4. After the RfC is closed, remove the RfC template from the Talk page section.
5. Normally, RfCs are closed by the participants themselves, using WP:Consensus guideline. Consensus is not determined by counting votes, but rather by weighing the merits of policy-based arguments.
6. If an RfC is contentious, the participants can ask an uninvolved person to close the RfC.
7. Some editors choose to ask an uninvolved Administrator to close the RfC. To do do, post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, or simply contact any uninvolved administrator.
8. For RFCs that are really contentious, a team of three persons, perhaps administrators, can be asked to close the RfC.
9. RfCs should not be unilaterally closed by a participant if there is still on-going discussion, or if other participants wish the RfC to stay open longer (up to 30 days) to solicit more input from uninvolved editors. There is no rush.
10. [in the Suggestions section; not the Ending section] - If an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add a clarifying comment immediately below the RfC question. Do not close the RfC if you disagree with it.
11. Originators of an RfC can withdraw the RfC at any time. Other participants, in that situation, can continue the discussion without an RFC or start a new RfC.

My point is that the "Ending" section in this guideline is not very helpful to editors, particularly inexperienced editors. I'm not saying that all of the above bulleted items are accepted policy by the WP community: I'm just using them as examples of the nature of guidance that should be provided to editors. Therefore, I propose improving the "Ending" section by adding material similar to that listed above. [Note to other editors: feel free to amend the above bullet list to improve it using strikeouts etc]. Thoughts? -- Noleander ( talk) 22:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

... also, that section name should probably be changed form "Ending" to "Closing", no? -- Noleander ( talk) 22:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you mostly concerned about articles, non-articles (e.g., disputed changes to WP:V), or RFC/Us? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I guess most RfCs I've participated in are mainspace (articles) ... so my tentative suggestions above are slanted in that direction. But this guideline has to address all kinds of RfCs, so my suggested changes above need to be enhanced to address policy-oriented RfCs and RfC-U's. My point here is not so much as "the above bullet points are good, let's put them in today"; instead I'm asking "do other editors think the current Ending section is lame?". We can always work out the details later. -- Noleander ( talk) 22:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The RFC/U process has a separate series of pages, and the instructions for it are consequently scattered all over.

Much of what you have here is right, but it's more complicated. For example, the original poster is normally allowed to withdraw his question even if someone else wants to keep talking. (They can keep talking in another section or start a new RFC.) You don't get to change someone else's signed comment, even if it means the question is non-neutral. I'm not sure that all of this is worth writing out, though, and how much is just instruction creep. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right: some of the above bullet points may be WP:CREEP; on the other hand, three times in the past 6 months something fishy happened at an RfC, and I came to this page so I could refer others to a widely-accepted guideline, and I was surprised that the guideline was missing from this page. That lack of clarity must be especially confusing for new editors - especially during an RfC, where editors may be frustrated or annoyed, clarity in the guidance is a good thing. Of the suggested bullet points above, I highlighted (in bold text) those that seem like they should be added to this guideline. That is not to say that tentative wording above is best (lots of word-smithing is still needed). Thoughts? -- Noleander ( talk) 13:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts: I think #3 is incorrect: Sometimes RFCs are closed as being useless, and it's unusual for anyone to document the consensus on typical/average-contentiousness RFCs. A few years back, someone was even saying that the consensus should never be documented for an RFC/U. The "up to 30 days" in #9 is incorrect; unilateral closures over the OPs objections should not happen even on day 31. The stuff about poorly worded questions should probably be handled in a separate section. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay ... that is good feedback. I'll update the bullet points above to incorporate your ideas soon. -- Noleander ( talk) 12:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the numbered items above to include WAID's suggestions. Any more input? -- Noleander ( talk) 13:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm assuming the silence means that there are no objections to adding the bold-face items above into the RfC guideline? Naturally, I would wordsmith the text and make sure it flows well. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

On point #1, you don't exactly need "consensus" to extend or shorten an RFC, if by "consensus" you mean people actively supporting the length change (and many editors do mean that, unfortunately). Imagine the case of an under-watched article whose RFC has received zero comments. We could have people objecting to an extension because nobody showed up to support the extension. I think our existing text is actually clearer than this: the bot will automatically de-list after 30 days, but there is no minimum or maximum.

I think that #7 might be useful. On #9, I think the main concern is someone closing an RFC for fear that his side will "lose". Consequently, I worry about adding it (we're not exactly assuming good faith there), but perhaps it would be useful. I think the general concept that is helpful there is that an RFC is fundamentally a question asked by someone (the OP), and it's rude to remove someone else's question. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with all your points. I'll go ahead and insert them into the guideline, incorporating these thoughts. -- Noleander ( talk) 12:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm done: updated the RfC guideline per the above. Anyone should feel free to tweak the wording, etc. -- Noleander ( talk) 14:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The section title "Request comment through talk pages" seems like it could be better. The parallel section is "Request comment on users", which is a good title. The title "Request comment through talk pages" is emphasizing where the request is made, rather than what the request is about. I suggest changing the title to

• "Request comment on content, guidelines, or policies" or
• "Request comment on non-user issues" or
• "Request comment on issues other than users"

Thoughts? -- Noleander ( talk) 14:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles, guidelines, policies, etc.? Insomesia ( talk) 20:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go with "Request comment on articles, policies, and other non-user issues". That seems pretty accurate. -- Noleander ( talk) 21:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care, but technically the section is about requesting comment on articles/advice/non-user issues only when the advice is being requested on a talk page. It doesn't describe how to set up a non-talk page RFC on these issues, e.g., Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@WAID: Can you clarify that? I thought that - except for RFCUs - all RfCs in any location (Talk page, or a project location, or that Pending Changes example) all used the same process: the {{ rfc}} template is just inserted and voila! How does the process change when it is not a Talk page? -- Noleander ( talk) 23:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the Pending Changes RfC, and it looks like an entire page (not a Talk page) was set up as a policy proposal: and the page did not use the {{ rfc}} template. That seems like a very rare situation. Indeed, that page could have used the rfc template, but the creators just chose not to. Did that Pending Changes page show up in the list of active RfCs? If not, one could argue is was not a properly formatted RfC, true? -- Noleander ( talk) 23:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The most obvious difference is that you have to first create the page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Should there be a hatnote or some other sign for those requests? Insomesia ( talk) 22:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen several similar RfC's created over the past few weeks relating to the SPLC naming organizations hate groups. Without commenting on the content of these RfCs, some of the are being created without any discussion first. Others seem to be taking an attempt at two bites of the apple. Has this issue been addressed before?   little green rosetta (talk)
central scrutinizer  03:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Prior discussion is not required. It's smart, but it's not required.

Multiple RFCs on the same subject tend not to provide the thoughtful responses that their originators presumably wanted. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I notice that there is an RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons which does not utilize an RfC template, and hence is not listed in the RfC lists. Contrasted with, say, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Education Program extension, which does use an RfC template. I suppose there is no requirement that an RfC template be used, but it seems odd to omit it. Should some guidance be added to the RfC guideline to address the possibility of omitting an RfC template? Or should the RfC guideline continue to suggest that the template is the standard approach (and treat missing templates as an aberration). -- Noleander ( talk) 15:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well... most people use the tags because they want the publicity. But you could manually list it at the end of the relevant page, if you didn't want the bot to be involved. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Talk:Texas Revolution#Threaded discussion, this appears to be an RfC discussion and people say they were led to the discussion by the RfCbot, but I can't find an official RfC nor was this ever closed. I'd reopen it if I could figure out how to do it, because it is clearly unresolved and articles are still using both Texian and Texan. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The bot will have removed the RFC template after 30 days.

Formal closures are not required. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As it's unresolved, what's the best thing to do, start a new one or is there a way to reopen it? Dougweller ( talk) 14:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd first consider whether there's any significant likelihood of resolving it.

If so, then I'd start a new one, with a link to the old one. The other option is to copy the old one back to the talk page (if it's been archived) and add a new date stamp (so the RFC bot will think it's a brand-new question). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Should we be clearer about the standard practices for multi-author "questions"? Sometimes the wording of a question is hashed out in advance, in which case the following seem to be generally true:

1. You sign with five tildes, for just a date stamp (no names).
2. The question is less likely to need editing, but it's less awful to edit it (because you're not changing one person's signed comments).

What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like good advice. But if this situation is rare, perhaps it doesn't bear mentioning in this guideline. I'd wager that 95% or more of all RfC statements are single-author. If the above guidance were added into this guideline, it should also integrate the rule "do not amend an RfC statement after other editors have started responding below the statement." -- Noleander ( talk) 23:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Low-participation RFCs on talk pages with quick archiving rules fairly often get archived before the 30-day bot period. The RFC bot copes gracefully with this, but it seems to surprise some of the editors. On the assumption that no one is planning to re-write the talk page archiving bots to skip sections containing RFC templates, should we maybe mention the possibility of an aggressive archiving timeline resulting in short discussions? Or is it too much instruction creep? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We could mention that to prevent the RfC being archived, people can use User:DoNotArchiveUntil or add {{subst:DNAU|<integer>}} (where "integer" stands for a number of days) to the top of the RfC. See Template:Do not archive until. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I filed this RFC yesterday but the bot has not listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture. Can this be corrected please. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is happening there. I posted a query at the RfC bot expert's talk page User_talk:Chris_G#RfC_bot_question ... I'm sure they'll find a simple explanation. -- Noleander ( talk) 02:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Another RfC was breaking RFCbot, and basically it was crashing before it was able to list your RfC. It should be resolved now. -- Chris 08:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it! Betty Logan ( talk) 16:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I was selected for "request of comment". What is that? DEIDRA C. ( talk) 21:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I replied at the user's talk page. -- Noleander ( talk) 22:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, can you direct me to the discussion you referred to when you reverted? [7] The problem with your edit is you seem to be changing the description of an RfC to anyone can close it at any time, and this just isn't how they normally work. Advising people that that's okay is likely to lead to problems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for WhatamIdoing, but there was a discussion above at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#.22Ending.22_section_needs_more_guidance that considered various clarifications for the "Ending" section. You object to a suggestion that "anyone can close it at any time" ... and I agree that would not be an accurate statement of WP practices. But I don't see where the new text says that exactly. Are you mostly concerned about the "The originator of a RfC can close the RfC at any time if they feel the issue has been addressed, or if they no longer have a need for outside input ..." statement? -- Noleander ( talk) 21:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@SV: I've reviewed the change you made, and it looks like your biggest change was deleting paragraphs #2 and #4. Paragraph #4 was an old paragraph that has been there for a long time, and it was not touched in the August revision to this section. Paragraph #2 originated as item #11 in the August discussion. Item #11 was suggested by WhatamIdoing (even tho it appears above my signature). I think the concept was: Editor X wants some community input on question Q, and several editors reply, and X has gotten enough information, so the RfC has served its purpose; so X can close the RfC. That makes sense in that situation. However, for RfCs where multiple parties, say Y and Z, are engaged in a dispute, if Y initiates the RfC, and responses start coming in, Y should not be able to unilaterally kill the RfC over Z's objection. So, I agree that the wording should be improved to make that clearer. -- Noleander ( talk)

I'll post the four versions below for comparison. Basically, my objection is that the new versions are too wordy and repetitive, and that they give a misleading impression that anyone may close an RfC at any time, when in fact doing that often leads to problems. For example, if the originator of an RfC (or anyone else) tried to close it after a couple of days while people were still commenting, s/he would be reverted, so there's no point in adding to the guideline that it's okay to do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, in addition to the time factor, I think we should not give the impression that it's okay for involved parties to close RfCs unless consensus is so clear it would be foolish to involve someone else. That's the other recent change that I think is not helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

Versions side by side

Version at 07:37, 27 June 2012‎ (before recent changes)

Version at 20:36, 11 September 2012‎

RfCs that are listed by the RfC bot are also automatically de-listed by the RfC bot after 30 days (calculated from the first timestamp after the RfC template). Thirty days is the default length, but there is no required minimum or maximum length. If consensus has been reached before 30 days, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run. If further time is wanted, editors can change the first timestamp to a more recent date, which will prevent the bot from removing the listing. Manually added RfCs must be manually closed. This is accomplished by deleting the text that you added from the RfC page. All requests for comment on a user need to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor (not necessarily an admin) when the dispute has been resolved, moved to any other forum, or seems unlikely to be resolved.

The default duration of a RfC is 30 days, but there is no minimum or maximum length. The RfC bot will automatically remove a RfC from the list of active RfCs after 30 days, measured from the first timestamp within the talk page RfC section. If a RfC discussion concludes before 30 days, and there is no objection to closing the RfC, you can manually close the RfC by deleting the RfC template, {{ rfc}}, from the talk page RfC section (then the RfC bot will remove the RfC from the active RfC list on its next run). If more than 30 days are required, change the first timestamp within the talk page RfC section to a more recent date. The originator of a RfC can close the RfC at any time if they feel the issue has been addressed, or if they no longer have a need for outside input. Other editors, in that situation, can continue the discussion without a RfC, or start a new RfC. Editors other than the originator should not close a RfC if the discussion is ongoing or if there is an objection from other participants. Normally, by the end of the discussion, the participants have the information they need and no formal closing process or statement is either necessary or helpful. If the RfC is unusually complex or if the results are disputed, you may ask an uninvolved editor to formally close the discussion. The closing editor will review, summarize, and announce the results of the discussion. Participants may ask any uninvolved, willing editor to close the RfC, or a request can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. All requests for comment on a user need to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor (not necessarily an admin) when the dispute has been resolved, moved to any other forum, or seems unlikely to be resolved.

SV's version (21:03, 11 September 2012)

WhatamIdoing's version (21:12, 11 September 2012)

RfCs usually last for at least seven days and at most 30. RfCs that are of community-wide importance (such as RfCs that affect key policies) are normally expected to run for 30 days. The RfC bot will automatically remove an RfC from the list of active RfCs after 30 days, measured from the first timestamp within the RfC section. If people have stopped commenting before this time, and if there is no objection to closing the RfC, you can manually close it by deleting the RfC template, {{ rfc}}, from the talk page, and the RfC bot will remove the RfC from the active list on its next run. If more than 30 days are required, change the first timestamp within the talk page RfC section to a more recent date. If by the end of the discussion the consensus is not obvious, or if the issue is a contentious one, you should ask an uninvolved admin or editor to close the discussion, rather than closing it yourself. The closing editor will summarize and announce the results of the discussion. Participants may ask any uninvolved editor to close the RfC, or a request can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

The default duration of a RfC is 30 days, but there is no minimum or maximum length. The RfC bot will automatically remove a RfC from the list of active RfCs after 30 days, measured from the first timestamp within the talk page RfC section. If a RfC discussion concludes before 30 days, and there is no objection to closing the RfC, you can manually close the RfC by deleting the RfC template, {{ rfc}}, from the talk page RfC section (then the RfC bot will remove the RfC from the active RfC list on its next run). If more than 30 days are required, change the first timestamp within the talk page RfC section to a more recent date. The originator of a RfC can close the RfC at any time if they feel the issue has been addressed, or if they no longer have a need for outside input. Other editors, in that situation, can continue the discussion without a RfC, or start a new RfC. Editors other than the originator should not close a RfC if the discussion is ongoing or if there is an objection from other participants. Normally, by the end of the discussion, the participants have the information they need and no formal closing process or statement is either necessary or helpful. If the RfC is unusually complex or if the results are disputed, you may ask an uninvolved editor to formally close the discussion. The closing editor will review, summarize, and announce the results of the discussion. Participants may ask any uninvolved, willing editor to close the RfC, or a request can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. All requests for comment on a user need to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor (not necessarily an admin) when the dispute has been resolved, moved to any other forum, or seems unlikely to be resolved.

Proposal A

I see what you are driving at. How about this:

The default duration of a RfC is 30 days, but there is no minimum or maximum length. The RfC bot will automatically remove a RfC from the list of active RfCs after 30 days, measured from the first timestamp within the talk page RfC section. If a RfC discussion concludes before 30 days, and there is no objection to closing the RfC, you can manually close the RfC by deleting the RfC template, {{ rfc}}, from the talk page RfC section (then the RfC bot will remove the RfC from the active RfC list on its next run). If more than 30 days are required, change the first timestamp within the talk page RfC section to a more recent date.

The originator of a RfC can close the RfC at any time if they feel the issue has been addressed, or if they no longer have a need for outside input. Other editors, in that situation, can continue the discussion without a RfC, or start a new RfC. Editors other than the originator should not close a RfC if the discussion is ongoing or if there is an objection from other participants.

Normally, by the end of the discussion, the participants have the information they need and no formal closing process or statement is either necessary or helpful. If the RfC is unusually complex or if the results are disputed, you may ask an uninvolved editor to formally close the discussion. The closing editor will review, summarize, and announce the results of the discussion. Participants may ask any uninvolved, willing editor to close the RfC, or a request can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

All requests for comment on a user need to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor (not necessarily an admin) when the dispute has been resolved, moved to any other forum, or seems unlikely to be resolved.

But I'd like to hear WhatAmIDoing's thoughts, since they originally suggested item #11. -- Noleander ( talk) 23:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

First, I would like to retain these sentences from my version. "RfCs usually last for at least seven days and at most 30. RfCs that are of community-wide importance (such as RfCs that affect key policies) are normally expected to run for 30 days." The first, because it would be highly unusual to close an RfC before seven days. The second, because it's often important to keep them open for 30 if it's a key or contentious RfC -- people see it, expect to be able to comment, but wait for whatever reason, then arrive and find it closed prematurely. I've seen this cause problems several times. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple of quick points:

• Self-closing is normal. We need to encourage that. We do not need to have 59 RFCs stacked up at WP:AN in the increasingly vain hope that some admin will wave a magic closing wand at the disputes.
• We permit the originator to withdraw the question or proposal if the OP decides it was a bad idea, even within hours of the RFC being opened. We don't require the OP to keep the RFC open, even if it looks like people would like to continue discussing why it's such a bad idea for weeks to come. This is dispute resolution: if it's resolved, you're done and you should stop, no matter how long the clock says you were talking.
• RFCs on contentious issues very frequently run longer than 30 days. Two months is not unheard of, e.g., Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012, but having a productive conversation that runs a bit longer than 30 days is not exactly unusual for regular article disputes, even though there is no "community-wide importance" involved.
• The closing process for RFC/U pages is totally separate (e.g., no bot listings) and therefore must be mentioned separately.
• We're getting complaints from people who aren't able to figure this out. The goal behind some of that needless verbosity was to make the page comprehensible to mere mortals, not to people with edit counts in the stratosphere. The question here isn't "Does SV understand this process?" but "Does the new editor with 100 edit counts on three articles, who has never participated in an RFC discussion, understand this?" The concise versions weren't working.

More later, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• I know that RfC are sometimes self-closed, but it's only done where consensus is obvious, which is what I added to the text.
• Can you give an example of the originator withdrawing and being allowed to close? I'm not sure I've ever seen that, unless (again) it's a situation where consensus is so clear that it would be foolish to keep it going.
• I didn't change that they could run longer than 30 days, but it is unusual. The norm is between seven and 30 days.
• I agree that it's good to make the page easy to understand, but making it longer risks having the opposite effect. The version on the page is currently unclear to me, and it contradicts itself (anyone may close, then only uninvolved editors may close). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@SV: A few questions: (1) you say that the current version says "anyone can close it". Can you pinpoint that for me? I don't see it in the text. Do you mean where it says the originator can close it? (2) For several years, I've seen the "30 day nominal duration" repeated by members of the community; but I've never seen a 7-day period mentioned before, by anyone. Is that (7 days) written down somewhere? (3) There is a big distinction between the parties/originator "internally" closing, and an uninvolved person doing a formal close. The current text makes that clear. I think your proposal blurs the distinction between the two ways to end an RfC. Do you think these instructions should help new editors understand those nuances? -- Noleander ( talk) 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As written it implies that anyone can close it "you can manually close the RfC by..." then stating that the originator may close. Can I see some examples of the originator closing before the end or where consensus isn't obvious? As for seven days, I don't know whether it's written down anywhere, but it's standard practice so far as I'm aware, mirroring the seven-day RM period. Again, do you have examples of RfCs closing earlier? Sorry, I didn't understand your final point about blurring a distinction. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can give you an example of an OP closing before the "end" (or what the bot would have assumed was the end): Wikipedia talk:Stub#Can_lists_be_stubs?, which was listed as an RFC on the 14th of last month. The OP requested an admin to close it two days after he posted the RFC template. (He let the closer remove the RFC template, but there were no further comments after he announced that he was seeking a formal close.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That was opened on August 3 and closed on Aug 20, four days after the last comment, and the closure was endorsed by an admin in case of doubt about the consensus. That would be a standard period for an RfC that few people were commenting on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The RFC tag was added on the 14th and the OP announced his request for closure on the 16th. And it was a non-admin closure. "Discussion" and "RFC" are not synonymous. The RFC was open for just less than two days and five hours. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

But that's just a question of when the tag was added; the discussion was open for 17 days and had petered out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: (a) I agree that the RfC instructions should be clear to new editors. I am a great fan of making instructions terse, but not so terse that newcomers miss out on key details. WP veterans often have a lot of expertise, and if we write instructions, we sometimes leave the "obvious" unsaid; but that material is often not obvious to newcomers. When in doubt we should err on the side of more guidance. (b) I also agree that there are times when an originator can withdraw the RfC unilaterally; but there are times when they shouldn't. Some words could be added to clarify that. (c) You are right: the RFCU closing is important. I guess we should keep that text or add a blue link to the RFCU instruction page. -- Noleander ( talk) 00:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Noleander, could you say what was unclear, missing or inaccurate in my version above? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather just work from the current version and improve it incrementally, otherwise it is too confusing. You cited "you can manually close the RfC by..." as a problem, but the full quote is "If a RfC discussion concludes before 30 days, and there is no objection to closing the RfC, you can manually close the RfC ..". Which seems accurate to me: after all, the goal here is explaining to rookie editors how to stop an RfC: do they have to wait for the bot? Do they have to wait 30 days? What do they do if the issue is fully resolved after 10 days? etc etc. As for the 7 days: that seems to be introducing a new "hard" number that was not in the RfC guideline in the past. This is the first I've heard of "7 days" in the RfC context. Is the purpose of the 7 days to set a suggested minimum duration (as in: "Avoid closing RfCs before 7 days, to give other editors a chance to respond")? I guess I don't have any objection to that, but that seems like a big change, so we should probably solicit input from others on that before introducing a new number (CREEP, etc). -- Noleander ( talk) 02:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to work from the current version. It's wordy and the part about the originator being able to close any time is misleading. No admin would support someone closing an RfC after a couple of days if he didn't like where it was headed. As for seven days, I've been opening and closing RfCs for years, and seven days is the minimum that I'm aware of, in keeping with RM, so I don't see it as a change. Perhaps we should restore the version before the current changes and work from that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you look at the latest update, which includes some improvements based on your input and WAID's input, and see what you think? It may address some of your concerns. As for the 7 day minimum, it seems sensible, but I've never heard of a 7 day minimum in the RfC context, and I've participated in a couple hundred RfCs over the past few years. Introducing a numerical limit is something that shouldn't be done lightly: If we could see where it's been mentioned a few times, that would be more persuasive: Can you point to some place in WP, even in just a talk page somewhere, where the 7 day minimum is mentioned in an RfC context? Was the 7 day minimum mentioned in this RfC guideline in the past and removed at some point? -- Noleander ( talk) 23:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether seven days was ever written down, but it has always been the minimum that I'm aware of. If you were to open an RfC and ask an admin to close it after five days, you'd almost certainly be asked to wait. Can you point to RfCs that have closed earlier?

Also, this is not "introducing a numerical limit." My edit said: "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, and a minimum of seven days is standard practice." That is correct, and this page ought to be descriptive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to introduce a numerical limit, and it isn't a good idea. WP:SNOW happens. No decent admin objects to an OP closing early if he objects to the direction it's going, so long as the OP is willing to respect the direction that it's going. Nobody does, and nobody should, require an OP to keep listening to "This is the stupidest idea I've heard all year" just so we can avoid closing an RFC "early". When you've got your information, you're done.

Six days. Five days. Almost seven days. Four days. Four days. This happens all the time. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. If you have strong feelings about leaving out seven days, I won't go on about it. I just think that if this is for new editors, some parameters make sense -- as in "here is standard practice, but feel free to tweak it." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Issue summary

To try to organize the discussion of possible improvements to the Ending section, here is a numbered list of issues. Feel free to add more:

1. Should RFCU closing text be there? or removed? or just replaced with a link to WP:RFCU
2. Should 7-day suggested minimum be mentioned? or not?
3. Should text be included that suggests that originator can unilaterally close when they feel there is no longer an issue? Or must all parties assent to closure?
4. Should the text explain the distinction between a informal close (parties just agree on a consensus; or drop the disucssion) versus a formal close IAW Wikipedia:Closing discussions
5. Should the text be on the terse side; or more verbose & tutorial?

-- Noleander ( talk) 02:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts on these five issues, after digesting the ideas from SV and WAID above:

1. RFCU: eliminate the text & put a link to WP:RFCU
2. Avoid introducing a new number, per CREEP, unless several other editors endorse the 7-day concept for RfC
3. Yes, there are situations when the originator can say "oops" or "never mind" or "I've got what I needed" and the text should mention those situations. The current wording is not ideal and should be improved, since it suggests that the originator can close even if a dialog amongst other parties is on-going.
4. Yes, there is a big distinction between 3 kinds of closure: (a) automatic after 30 days; (b) manually close by parties; (c) formal close via Wikipedia:Closing discussions. The text should clearly explain, in words that rookie editor can grasp, the differences in these kinds of closure, the steps involved in each, and when each is appropriate.
5. I'd err on the side of being a clear tutorial that an inexperienced editor can grasp.

my 2 cents. -- Noleander ( talk) 02:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts:

1. We should at least mention that they are closed manually and point towards the RFCU closing page (not the main RFCU page) at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. If we remove the other information, rhen we need to check to make sure that it's on the closing page (should be, but hasn't always been).
2. I'm not inclined to mention a minimum. It's good advice in general, but there are so many exceptions.
3. Originators do unilaterally withdraw questions early, so why not say so?
4. We should at least remind people that an informal close is typical and permitted. It might be useful to differentiate between "ending" or "de-listing" (what the bot does) and "closing" in the sense of summarizing the outcome.
5. I think an explanatory style that covers all the questions we frequently get is desirable. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I generally concur with those assessments. Thanks for pointing out the RFCU closing subpage ... I was not aware of that. I agree that we should improve the text to more clearly distinguish the 3 kinds of endings. -- Noleander ( talk) 17:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I updated the Ending section text in accordance with the above suggestions. -- Noleander ( talk) 16:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal B

Here is another proposal that addresses some of the issues above:

The default duration of a RfC is 30 days, but there is no minimum or maximum length. The RfC bot will automatically remove a RfC from the list of active RfCs after 30 days, measured from the first timestamp within the talk page RfC section. If a RfC discussion concludes before 30 days, and there is no objection to closing the RfC, you can manually close the RfC by deleting the RfC template, {{ rfc}}, from the talk page RfC section (then the RfC bot will remove the RfC from the active RfC list on its next run). If more than 30 days are required, change the first timestamp within the talk page RfC section to a more recent date.

The originator of a RfC can close the RfC at any time if they feel the issue has been addressed, or if they no longer have a need for outside input. Other editors, in that situation, can continue the discussion without a RfC, or start a new RfC. Editors other than the originator should not close a RfC if the discussion is ongoing or if there is an objection from other participants.

Normally, by the end of the discussion, the participants have the information they need and no formal closing process or statement is either necessary or helpful.If the participants in the RfC arrive at a consensus, you may close the RfC by removing the RfC template, or simply by letting the 30 day period elapse. Alternatively, if the RfC is unusually complex or if the results are disputed, you may ask an uninvolved editor to formally close the discussion. The closing editor will review, summarize, and announce the results of the discussion. Participants may ask any uninvolved, willing editor to close the RfC, or a request can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

All requests for comment on a user need to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor (not necessarily an admin) when the dispute has been resolved, moved to any other forum, or seems unlikely to be resolved.All requests for comment on a user must be closed following the instructions in WP:RFCU.

...-- Noleander ( talk) 02:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I object to these recent changes but when I try to fix them I'm being reverted wholesale, so I've restored the version before the changes began. Article RfCs are the one area of dispute resolution that usually work and are usually drama-free, so I want to make sure this page doesn't give a misleading impression of best practice. And I think, for example, the issue of the originator closing whenever he wants, and not acknowledging that seven days minimum is standard, does give a misleading impression. I also think the wordiness is getting in the way of clarity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the original version is a lot worse than any of the more recent versions :-). Can we at least agree to restore your prior version from a few minutes ago: that is half way between ... it is not perfect, but better. I'll restore it so you can see which version I'm talking about. -- Noleander ( talk) 23:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Remaining issues

It looks like there are still a few open issues:

1. Should 7-day suggested minimum be mentioned? or not?
2. Should text be included that suggests that originator can unilaterally close when they feel there is no longer an issue?
3. Should the text be on the terse side; or more verbose & tutorial?

Any others? -- Noleander ( talk) 23:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You're writing a text here for newbies or others not familiar with RfC. As a matter of fact, admins are unlikely to agree to close an RfC before seven days (unless something has gone wrong with it), and if anyone tries to end it before then they would probably be reverted, unless it was an RfC that no one had noticed or cared about. So I can't see the point in failing to mention that the seven-day minimum is the norm. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the argument. But at this point I'm just trying to capture the open issues. I don't have a strong feeling one way or another on the 7-day minimum. We should see what other editors think. -- Noleander ( talk) 00:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of seven days, so long as it's presented as standard practice rather than a rule. I oppose any mention of the originator being allowed to close unilaterally; originators are given wide latitude but they can't take ownership of an RfC to the point of closing it if they don't like the results. And yes, the text should be succinct. Every unnecessary word increases the potential for misunderstanding. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If you mention it at all, it will be misinterpreted as a "rule". This is an unfortunate fact of writing advice for Wikipedia.

And normally, nobody reverts early closures. I've given you half a dozen examples of early closures from the last month, and there were no reversions. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed seven days, per the examples you gave above, though I think I'd like to see it mentioned as a common practice, or whatever words would convey that it's not written in stone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at those 3 open issues:

1. WAID posted some examples of under-7 days RfCs (and I just noticed one today: a 24-hour RfC with 4 responses that satisfied the originator open Sept 12, close Sept 13), so they look pretty common, therefore the 7 day suggested minimum should probably not go in this guideline.
2. I think there is middle ground here where the guideline can state that originators may close the RfC if the responses have satisfied their need for information (or they changed their mind, etc), yet the originator should not close simply because the RfC is not going their way or if there is an on-going dispute.
3. SV suggested some alternate text below that is comparable in detail to what I was thinking of (and was in my most recent text); and I think WAID also supported more tutorial-like detail, so it looks like we are all in agreement on spelling things out in language that rookie editors can understand (although the precise wording still needs to be worked out).

Does that sound like a good plan? -- Noleander ( talk) 15:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll let the seven days drop for now. As for originators -- several examples of early closures (perhaps all or most, I don't recall) were withdrawals, not really closures, because of strong opposition -- as in "no point in continuing because no one agrees with me." I'd be concerned in case the new wording inadvertently gives the impression that originators can thwart an RfC if they don't like the results, only to force people to start a new one, or start a new one themselves with a different question. I know that would be unusual, but it would happen if this guideline were to make it sound okay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the wording should not let think originators can bail out if they don't like the responses. On the other hand, this guideline should let originators know it is okay to end the RfC if the responses have persuaded the originator that their (originator's) proposal was misguided; that is, when the originator joins the consensus. That possibility is not mentioned in the text now. Also, I don't think this missing possibility is correlated with "early closure". The originator may get persuaded that their proposal was misguided/mistaken after 1,5, 10 or 20 days. -- Noleander ( talk) 19:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the primary source of disputes about "early closures" is when the consensus is pretty clear, but the OP (or someone who might as well be) wants to keep it going. So we want to enable this:

OP: I have a great new idea.

Respondents: <Immediate snowstorm>

OP: Okay, maybe it wasn't such a great idea. I'll de-list the RFC.

and to prohibit this:

OP: I have a great new idea.

Respondents: <Immediate snowstorm>

OP: Okay, maybe it wasn't such a great idea. I'll de-list the RFC.

Respondents: Oh, no you don't! If you start an RFC, you have to listen to people dismiss your idea for a minimum of 30 days.

and to firmly discourage this:

OP: I have a great new idea.

Respondents: <Immediate snowstorm>, and furthermore we hate your idea so much that we're closing the RFC right now, before any potential supporters have a chance to show up.

I don't know how to phrase this succinctly, except to say that the OP can de-list the RFC at any point, which (as has been pointed out) might occasionally be abused to cut off discussion early if the OP believes s/he can convince people the RFC supports his position now but is worried that later comments might be less likely to. I don't think I've seen an instance of that happening, although I have seen people be tempted by it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to discourage the OP from realizing after a few hours of opposition that he has asked the question in the wrong way, and wanting to close the discussion before an even stronger consensus against emerges, which he will find hard to overturn. He therefore decides to put us through a second RfC at a time of his choosing, or to force someone else to open another one with the same question, rather than allowing the one he opened to run.

Also, I think your example 2 above can be valid, if the point is that people want to see the strength of consensus against so that the RfC is conclusive. I agree that an RfC is just someone asking a question, but the point is that, once asked, they can't say: "Okay, I don't want any more answers right now." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen people try to game the system this way? I haven't. But I have seen people ask a badly explained question, and then try to start over with a clearer explanation. The second round tends to explain what the OP did wrong with the first question (e.g., "I'm not talking about BLP issues!"), and if done fairly soon afterwards often suffers from an emotional hangover from all the people who were trying to outdo each other is support of motherhood and apple pie, but I don't see anything impermissible with making the attempt. it sounds like you'd prefer prohibiting that, though.

Also, CCC: it shouldn't be hard to "overturn" a consensus. Either ____ is what we-the-community support today, or it's not. And if it's not, we should toss the outdated former-consensus right out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Finally, if someone asks a question and gets an answer and accepts that answer (as in example 2), then we already know the strength of the consensus. And if the answer is "this is the stupidest idea put forward this year on the entire project", then it's WP:UNCIVIL, uncollegial, and mean-spirited to force the OP to keep listening to people tell him what an idiotic idea he had, just so we can get the hypothetical benefit of knowing just how many people are willing to say that they hate the idea before the opposition figures out that they're beating a dead horse while the OP is trying to bury it. We've got to remember that the people whose ideas are being rejected have feelings, and that if we punish people with an unnecessary week or more of rejection, we're going to have fewer editors and fewer proposals. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have seen people try to game things by doing that, yes. I think my overall point here is that, while we give the originators of an RfC wide leeway, they don't own it. RfCs belong to the community and are often used to guide consensus in broader areas, not just the narrow area the RfC addressed directly, so I think the originator should adopt a stewardship role, not one of ownership, and should respect reasonable objections to early closure. It's hard to legislate for this because so much boils down to common sense and context, and what counts as a "reasonable" objection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you simultaneously accept the answer you've been given, and then game the system? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure I understand. I've seen people want to close RfCs that are going against them so they can open almost the same one again in a few days' time, with a slightly different question, rather than just leave the first one open.

We could clunk through all the possibilities here or just accept that RfCs, like any other talk-page discussion, don't belong to anyone, though as a matter of courtesy the originator does have wide leeway, and people are expected to be respectful and not mess around with RfCs unreasonably. So a lot of the time, if the originator wants to close after six days, no one is going to mind. But sometimes they will mind, and if the objection is reasonable, the originator can't say "it's my ball and I'm going home with it." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If someone sees that he's losing a discussion, and closes it with the intention of re-opening it again before long, then that's not "accepting the answer he's been given", is it? That would be closing a discussion early and rejecting the answer he's been given. That situation is completely different from example 2.

I'm not really concerned about the try-again folks. The community is usually pretty prompt and pretty harsh in dealing with what it considers to be an IDHT problem. I am concerned about OPs being abused and held up for ridicule because this page says that any objections from a tendentious editor are really important. Think about a pair of wiki-enemies: If one opens an RFC with a bad idea, do you want his wiki-enemy to be able to demand that it continue? That's what such a clause would ultimately achieve. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that this question about how to approach the "OP withdrawing the RfC" situation is a manifestation of a bigger shortcoming in the Ending section: The Ending section has a decent discussion of the mechanisms of closing (remove RfC tag, etc), but not too much on the scenarios which give rise to a close. I think the Ending section should briefly mention a few common situations that lead to a close, perhaps including:

a) The OP posts a query and they receive several responses which answer the question, so they choose to de-list the RFC (if there are no objections)

b) The RfC has been open for a few weeks, and has not had any responses for a week, and there is a very clear consensus, so any participant can propose that the RfC be manually closed.

c) The RfC has been open for awhile, responses have died down, but the issue is controversial, and no clear consensus emerged: so a formal close is requested.

d) The RfC was opened and responses were provided, but the OP lost interest or realizes that their proposal will not gain approval, and the 30 day timer elapses.

In other words, in addition to listing the mechanisms for closing also give some tutorial guidance to rookie editors on when a close happens. I'm not suggesting that we try to come up with a comprehensive list of every imaginable scenario, but rather that we mention a few of the common ones so rookie editors can read it and think "aha, so that is how it goes!" Thoughts? -- Noleander ( talk) 02:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I felt that the suggestion I added below summed things up without going into every possible scenario (because these issues do boil down to common sense, and whether you anticipate objections).

How and when to close an RfC on an article, policy or guideline is a matter of common sense and context. ... Deciding when to close depends on how much interest there is in the issue, how important it is to the community, whether editors are continuing to comment, and whether further notices should be posted to attract fresh input. RfCs that have been advertised as closing on a certain date should not be closed prematurely.

Any editor can close an RfC when consensus is unambiguous, but if the issue is a contentious one or consensus remains unclear, it is better to ask that an uninvolved admin or editor close it, sum up consensus, and impose the conclusion as appropriate.

We could then have a separate show/hide section with specific (hypothetical) examples (if this, then that). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I like that direction. I don't think an entire subsection is necessary, maybe just a paragraph or a few bullet points. Let me see if I can start with your text and build on it to meet these goals. Perhaps I'll continue that effort in the talk page section below. -- Noleander ( talk) 00:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

If you want something more verbose, I would suggest something like this:

How and when to close an RfC on an article, policy or guideline is a matter of common sense and context. The default duration is 30 days, and a minimum of seven days is standard practice. Deciding when to close depends on how much interest there is in the issue, how important it is to the community, whether editors are continuing to comment, and whether further notices should be posted to attract fresh input. RfCs that have been advertised as closing on a certain date should not be closed prematurely.

Any editor can close an RfC when consensus is unambiguous, but if the issue is a contentious one or consensus remains unclear, it is better to ask that an uninvolved admin or editor close it, sum up consensus, and impose the conclusion as appropriate. Requests for closure can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. If protecting or unprotecting a page might be required, or editing through protection, an admin closure is advisable.

To remove an RfC from the active RfC list, remove the RfC template, {{ rfc}}, from the talk page. The RfC bot will automatically remove an RfC from the active RfC list after 30 days, measured from the first timestamp within the RfC section on the talk page. It is unusual to extend an RfC beyond 30 days, but if there are no objections, or if the closer decides to extend it, this can be done by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date.

All requests for comment on a user should be closed in accordance with the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for offering this option. Just to clarify, when i mentioned "verbose" above it was not for the sake of wasting bytes on WP server, but rather the goal was to plainly state the instructions in a tutorial manner that a rookie editor could understand. -- Noleander ( talk) 04:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems like it should be pretty obvious. I would like to add verbage to the section that editing of a disputed section under RfC is prohibitted during the RfC. Since the RfC is a dispute resolution process, it seems quite stupid to allow editors to come into an RfC before it is closed, make a ruling and then edit based off what they think is the current trend.

• During the RfC, a section under dispute should not be edited. Any edits to the section should be minor issues unrelated to the specific dispute.

Arzel ( talk) 16:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is such a good rule to make. RFCs aren't always about a disputed section. Sometimes bold edits resolve the problem faster than a discussion about possible solutions. Sometimes we actually need, for serious reasons, to make changes (e.g., to remove a copyvio, libel, or spam).

Also, we don't really want a game-able m:The Wrong Version rule. (Step 1, revert to your preferred version. Step 2, immediately start an RFC. Step 3, insist that nobody remove your preferred version until the RFC is over... which you plan to drag out as long as possible.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It really depends on the nature of the RFC, and how the participants are interacting with each other. Obviously we don't want a disruptive revert/unrevert/re-revert/re-unrevert edit war during the middle of an RFC. If, on the other hand, the participants are working together cooperatively we want them to be able to continue. In short... If having people freely edit while they continue to discuss ends up disrupting the RFC, then they should stop doing so... if freely editing ends up helping the RFC, then people should continue to do so. Blueboar ( talk) 18:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Current article contains the passage:

Typically these testimonies, which include nothing but a vague description, are done by non-doctors making the diagnosis. ^[2] The verification process requires the contact information for three people (one a member of "The Mother Church") who "have either witnessed the healing or can vouch for its accuracy based on their knowledge of [the testifier]," ^[2] according to the Christian Science Publishing Society website. ^[3]

What I believe to be preferable, but which others reverse:

According to Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch (2009), most of these accounts contain little detail, and many of the diagnoses are made without medical consultation. ^[2] However, verification of an account of a healing is required before before its publication. This requires the contact information for three people (one a member of "The Mother Church") who "have either witnessed the healing or can vouch for its accuracy based on their knowledge of [the testifier]," ^[2] according to the Christian Science Publishing Society website. ^[3]

I might add that my version of Barrett’s article is more accurate, since it involves all but a direct quote.

Please let me know what you think. Michael J. Mullany ( talk) 03:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I've closed this RfC. Firstly, it's in the wrong location. Secondly, you've gone ahead and not discussed anything on the talk page (and you re-inserted your version once again immediately after posting here. If you want to ask whether it should be marked as pseudoscience or not, ask at WP:FTN (although that doesn't seem to be your question) or in general. If you want to have an RfC. Start a discussion first and actually discuss the specifics. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(There have been a debate issue about the Chinese Zodiac signs and the Western Horoscope signs, I am going to remove the mythology from the Western Horoscope signs due to WP:BOLLOCKS. I went to the page protection page and wanted to protect the signs of these zodiac, because they are a reliable source to Eastern values and they constantly being vandalized by IP's and one user believes it's "crap" which is unethical of the user, I want the share of the same values with the Western Horoscope signs, because they both are psuedoscience source, but mainly from mythological sources and I am hoping to keep them as they were for mythological purposes, I tried hard in to protecting these articles and allowed the IP who helped. Yes, to some it may be fiction, but it is mythology to another nations heritage and I don't want another horoscope deleted while the other is better, please at protect these pages and the Western Astrology signs for the WP:RS is pertains to mythology. One administrator will be deleting the revisions. Although, I believe it was reliable to mythological uses, and not from another user unethical reason of "Pure Crap".

Yes, fiction, pertaining to mythology, but it doesn't need deletion, and at least if there is any way to the informative sentences. Western Astrology already had mythology sections, and Chinese Zodiac signs as well, but since it is going to be deleted I suggest removing the mythology from the Western Horoscope. I want to work for both sources from mythology, and it is not just Bollocks, but since this occurred I would go on and remove it from the Western Horoscope, although both sources were fact from their mythology, and there are IPs who do mess with one culture to another. I would like to build more on the Chinese Zodiac the sources of mythology and its heritage it pertains to their countries values about mythology and folkore.-- GoShow (............................) 16:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC))

• This was noted on the WP:Help desk on section Astrology, thankfully Marketdiamond gave me advice to come here or another page and I was wondering from here and WP:N qualifications to only add the mythology information, that is all, a user and I agreed to delete some other information from those article pages (from my talkpage), but I am just asking for a last reliable edit if it might be editable just to leave the mythology part for both horoscopes, and at least to make more informative talk, however they are reliable from the book sources to pertain folklore and heritage to both Greek and Chinese heritage. Othewise, just leave as it is.-- GoShow (............................) 19:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In the Publicizing an RfC section, what is the bullet point Talk pages of editors you randomly select from Feedback Request Service (my emphasis) supposed to mean? From the context, I presume this sentence doesn't refer to the Bot notification. Confused, — MistyMorn ( talk) 16:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

See also User talk:RFC_bot and Wikipedia talk:FRS. My interpretation is that once the template is added on the relevant talkpage, the bot should randomly select from the FRS-subscribed users and notify those whom it selected. If my interpretation is correct, then "you randomly select" is indeed misleading, and should be changed to "the bot randomly selects" or some such. If my interpretation is incorrect then the text is rather more troubling. Are users expected to roll dice to make a selection? How is the roll verifiable? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That bullet point means that you can manually select random editors from the list of editors in the FRS, and post a note on their Talk pages to invite them to the RfC. The RfC bot will invite some editors from that list, but many editors do not respond to the bot because they are too busy, retired, etc. So, if no one is responding to the RfC after a week or so, just go to the FRS list and grab some random editors and ask them provide input. As long as you don't selectively choose editors that are "on your side" there is no violation of the WP canvassing rules. That said, maybe the wording in the instructions could be improved. -- Noleander ( talk) 00:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I changed the wording to "Talk pages of editors listed in the Feedback Request Service (select them at random to avoid canvassing concerns)". Let me know if it can be improved further. -- Noleander ( talk) 00:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. This rather leaves the question as to how editors supposed to "select them at random". If we really want to encourage genuinely random selection, wouldn't it be sensible to have some way of invoking the bot again? If this isn't feasible, I'd suggest replacing the word "random" with some sort of explanation about the need to avoid selectively choosing editors that are "on your side". — MistyMorn ( talk) 00:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No there is no way to remind the bot to "try again" ... although I suppose the bot software could be enhanced to do that. For now, I'll just improve the wording per your comment immediately above. Thanks for the input! -- Noleander ( talk) 17:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I have listed an RfC under "Certified" however I am not sure if it should be listed under "General" due to the wording in the project page. The RfC in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RidjalA Is it currently in the right place? Fordx12 ( talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections ? There's an open RFC here, but it is occurring in a closed discussion area... either the RFC is closed improperly, or the discussion is closed improperly. -- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 07:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 10:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

For what ever reason, the RFC titled, RfC: Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections → 2012 Republican rape comment controversies is capturing comments from the conversation below it on the project page. I am not sure how to fix it. Casprings ( talk) 13:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The RfC bot grabs text all the way until a user signature is found. In other words, the RfC statement should have a signature immediately following the RfC statement. I fixed this by adding your signature under the RfC statement. If another user created the RfC, the signature should be changed to contain their name. -- Noleander ( talk) 17:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball#College_basketball_team_season_articles_-_Schedules listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. My guess is that the "All" page is built by a bot which has a list of RfC groups that it includes, and that the "Technical and Templates" group (which this RfC was designated as) is not known to that bot. If I'm correct, the long term solution is to update the bot. A short term solution is to add that RfC to a second group, such as "policy" so it shows up in that All page. -- Noleander ( talk) 19:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I was able to fix it. I just added a new transclusion into the All page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. The basketball RfC is now there. -- Noleander ( talk) 19:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, folks! I've joined a few RfC and I dislike the current page format, where sections are named by editor. I think that discussions should be grouped by subject or point. For example, here an editor listed seven arguments. I'd prefer them to be placed each in a separate section, so discussions center on the issues and not on supporting or opposing editors. What do you think about this proposal? -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 18:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

RfCs can be formatted in a variety of ways. That format of the one you are linking to (sections named by editor) is a bit rare, but acceptable. The WP:RFC guideline already mentions a few different ways to format the RfC. Most RfCs do not have sections named by editor. -- Noleander ( talk) 17:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to organize them by subject or point when we don't know which subjects or points will be made during the RFC. When one person has a long list of reasons for or against something, they sometimes will break them up into multiple sections so that each item can be discussed separately. That's allowed, within reason, if it seems helpful. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the posting I personally sighted (minus last paragraph) 15 days ago, which has disappeared on both RfC pages. Talk now spans 28 October - 4 December.

DISPUTE SUMMARY.

Editor-1 would copyedit 'United States' lead paragraph to reflect 21st century territory for the geographical extent of its ‘federal constitutional republic’ as sourced in five USG sources currently in force, and other style changes.

Editor-2 objects using an 1904 colonial doctrine of "unincorporated" territory to exclude five territories and nine uninhabited islands as outside the U.S. geographical extent and its federal constitutional government.

Talk, 28 October – 20 November - 4 December. (current and archive 42) Editor-1 offers five USG sources, four federal court cases, three WP articles, along with extended quoted passages and explanation. Editor-2 offers constructs of two WP articles and two external links without drawing directly from them.

The two have collaborated on and off for over a year, Editor-1 has a background in history and politics. Editor-2 shows an interest in history and geography. so one RfC went to history-geography, one RfC went to government-politics. Any comments should begin through that framework of wider collaboration.

Please restore the information to draw a collaborative community -- Golbez seems to be blaming me, but it must be your bot. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 18:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What page was this on? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

- See Talk:United States#Request for Comment -- Introduction first paragraph.

- I have made four attempts to write the RfC properly -- I know I don't know how, as you can see -- so far, the only response is the editor who blanked my contribution without discussion, who now has responded with a wonderful Platonic Dialogue which is actually sort of fun in a way -- but no other contributors show. -- How is that?

- Last editor blanking my material without discussion was at Talk:American Civil War#Territorial Crisis. I tried to set up a systematic Talk section for discussion of his five edits, and after a couple of one-sided posts inside my postings, "Goodbye Mr. Bond." the editor replied -- and no more.

- I have not filed an RfC there yet, thinking it unseemly to have more than one or two initiated at the same time. One third opinion has gone my way, in another I have not figured out how to word the request to get a response other than -- try again, be more concise. So I tried again there also. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 10:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I went to the US page, and to the RFC pages, and you do' have an RFC listed. It worked. So what's the problem?

We can't guarantee responses. It's a request for comments, not a demand for comments. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There are too many RfCs (well I think so, do others?).

I propose, in the interest of reducing gratuitous RfCs and maybe getting better prepared RfC questions, that an RfC mst be seconded by a second user in good standing.

(Only if this proves contentious, should this question go to RfC).

-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there are too many RFCs.

Imagine that there is a dispute between two or three editors, and only one person wants an RFC. (Perhaps the others refuse to second it because they expect to "lose".) What then? Do they just keep re-hashing the mess between themselves? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

True. We wouldn't want to create bureacratic stalemates like that.

There are a lot of RfCs listed at Wikipedia:Dashboard/Requests for comment. Maybe its not so much that there are too many, but that so many have poorly phrased, or poorly thought out questions, as if the question has been written by one random individual entirely on his own. I was thinking that a proposed RfC waiting for a seconder would lead to a brief discussion leading to a better question, and maybe the avoidance of publicised proposals that never had a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:RFC list footer. Viriditas ( talk) 01:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should be asking the question, below, on WP:RFC/USER, DNR, on ANI, on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, or somewhere else. If I've posted this in the wrong location then tell me and read no further. Please advise.

There is an active DNR RfC, "talk:Paul Krugman", in process, and I filed the RfC and am a participant in the discussion.

I have, for some time, been attempting to obtain clarification about the RfC, asking *repeatedly*, whether claims of POV are, or are not, within the scope of this RfC. I have explained that if a finding of NPOV violation is sustained, then most the the dispute goes away.

All I'm asking for is a simple declarative sentence, from an authoritative person, that says either "POV accusations *are* within the scope of this RfC" or, alternatively, "POV accusations *are not* within the scope of this RfC". I haven't received a clear answer.

In response to my POV scope clarification issue questions, user:Amadscientist, the facilitator of the RfC, has responded with the accusation that I am "Wikilawyering".

I acknowledge that, when I filed the RfC on the topic of a single specific disputed edit -- if I knew *then* what I know *now* -- I would have directed the issue to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. In my defense, I started asking my POV scope clarification question at the start of the RfC discussion.

The dispute about Paul Krugman, spans the RfC and [talk:Krugman]; it is voluminous, overlapping, painful, involving many parties, and has been occurring for weeks. A disposition of the POV violation claims would do much to reduce the noise level.

If my description, above, is viewed to be incomplete I will willing add quote and citations. Let me know.

How should I proceed on this matter? Deicas ( talk) 01:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Attempts to explain RFC and DRN differences have been met with "I don't hear you" issues. I suggest AN/I if you feel administrative action is required.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 02:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I will wait for the case status to change to "FAILED" and, then, pursue the matter further. Deicas ( talk) 19:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has had a user rfc I can testify it is extremely stressful - I recently tried to close one that was not attracting much attention at all and was reverted with comments of, its ok , RFC users can stay open till resolved ... this seems undue to me - as I remember a month used to be considered reasonable - if users have not commented after a month then there is no immediate issue - I would like to get this clarified - its unreasonable to insist on keeping a RFC user open for lengthy periods, and IMO unduly attacking - one month is plenty and if that is not clear in the guidelines then we need to make that clear - Youreally can 05:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing, "Certified disputes may be closed under any of the following circumstances:

If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped. From the main page, such RfC/Us are typically "delisted due to inactivity."

The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration.

The parties and/or participants to the dispute agree (via a motion on the talk page of that rFc/u)."

• - The above 'current' guidelines were used as a reason to keep a RFC user open 'indefinitely' unless any of the statements is qualified - Is this reasonable, consider an RFC after six weeks there is little or no community interest, isn't that more than enough stress and pressure on the user named without insisting on keeping it open for months and months? If you can't make your case and get community support after a month then you haven't got a case and the RFC user should be closed as no community consensus for any action. Youreally can 06:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• - I updated the process page - diff = Youreally can 08:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Support concept but found the wording a bit too long and have rephrased. NE Ent 13:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no specific deadline—not for RFC/Us, not for regular RFCs. The "30-day" idea is merely for the convenience of the bot's operator (A bot can't really tell whether something is resolved or not) and the bot has nothing to do with RFC/Us.

The problems with specifying a 30-day timer for RFC/Us are multiple. I looked at a sample a while back, and I found three major problems:

• RFC/Us that were basically resolved, but one (losing) editor wanted to keep it open for "the full 30 days" because he thought by starting an RFC/U, he was entitled to shame the accused editor for a full 30 days. "Magic numbers" cut both ways.
• RFC/Us that were in active discussion at the 30-day mark, and people were telling them to stop trying to resolve the dispute because it was "too late" and that they would be "required" to go to another forum. (This was usually an outside editor who didn't know any better, or someone who wanted the accused to be punished.)
• RFC/Us that were getting nowhere because one editor (usually the accused) believed that if he could stall the process for 30 days (but without irritating people so much that they would move to ArbCom), then it would all just go away.

As a result, I think it is important to avoid any reference to a 30-day time limit. Instead, if this concerns you, you could keep an eye on RFC/Us and do the important and often overlooked step of noticing that no comments have been made for a while (usually more than one or two weeks) or everyone seeming to be satisfied and proposing on the talk page that it be closed for lack of activity or due to the dispute having been resolved. That could get these closed much faster than an arbitrary time limit. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Added close promptly as resolved to address WhatamIdoing's first point; leaving the 30 day per YRC's comments & experience -- it's not reasonable to subject an editor to an indefinite discussion about their virtues or lack thereof. Stalling by the accused can be considered ongoing disruption as mentioned in the current text. NE Ent 22:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been a discussion at Talk:The Big Bang Theory regarding changes to the article that has been going on since 5 January. This has now led to an RfC. However, the editor who opened the RfC has been a persistent problem, editing the article continuously while discussion is underway, without consensus, despite numerous requests and even warnings on his talk page not to do so, as it muddies the waters. This behaviour has continued into the RfC. Since opening the RfC he has made edits to the article, [9] and consequently has had to amend his proposal after two editors have already responded. [10] These changes have included collapsing the comments made by others so they are not immdeiately visible, hiding them under an inaccurate heading in the {{ collapse top}} template. [11] His latest response at the discussion makes it clear that he believes that editors who have already replied should amend their responses to cater for his changes. [12] Based on his editing history at the article, I expect this sort of thing to continue, making the RfC a completely useless mess. I'm hoping that editors familiar with the RfC process could have a look at the article and make comment on the way the RfC process should be conducted so that this RfC can be of some use. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule against editing an article during an RFC. Sometimes it's even helpful (although not apparently this time). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a long standing conduct dispute regarding Arthur Rubin...but I don't have another editor to post on his talk page...therefore my dispute does not meet the minimum requirements to request for comments on his conduct. I posted on the DRN but was sent here. So does anybody have any suggestions for the steps that I might take to try and resolve the conflict? Thanks. -- Xerographica ( talk) 12:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Xerographica has raised the issue at ANI. NE Ent 03:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the instructions for endorsements, {Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.} — When I read this, it looked like it was instructing editors to endorse the view only if they entirely agreed with it, which seems to be setting the bar too high. Specifically, my comment is directed towards the part that says, "the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it." -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 12:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the standard approach. However, if there's a multi-point view, it's not unusual to see partial endorsements, like "* Agree with the first point. Example (talk)"

The main point is to keep people from posting "* Oppose this view from a person who always defends this bad editor. Example (talk)"

-- WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any generally accepted idea about how much time should pass between the closure of an RfC and the opening of a new RfC on essentially the same issue? Should there be some kind of statute of limitations, a reasonable time interval such as a year or 6 months, before discussion over the same issues is relaunched? The question comes up in relation to this discussion, which quickly became a discussion about the addition of state names to US cities. That same issue had been thoroughly discussed very recently in the same venue. The earlier discussion, which ran to more than 200,000 bytes and garnered 58 !votes, ran from November 4 to November 24 and was closed as "maintain status quo". The new discussion was launched just six weeks later, on January 8. Some editors have asked that the new discussion be shut down because the previous discussion was so recent, while others are insisting that it be thoroughly discussed again. I'm asking here, not about this one issue in particular but on discussions in general: should there be some kind of "grace period," after the closure of a discussion, before an issue is reopened? How do people feel about that? -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no firm rule. If the previous discussion closed with an actual consensus and there is no significant new information, then I'd wait several months. However, if the previous discussion ended with no consensus or there is some new information, then it could be much sooner. (A related-but-different question could be raised simultaneously or immediately in all cases.)

Generally, the community self-polices, because if you are re-opening a question that was just settled to everyone's satisfaction, people tend to !vote to respect the previous discussion's consensus, rather than truly re-discussing it from scratch. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

For a RfCU that I've been participating in, certifying editors and the subject of the RfCU are discussing fairness in notification, and it'd be helpful to hear some outside perspectives on this process question. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Assistance#Question about inviting editors to the drafting process and Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#What.27s considered a fair notification vs convassing.3F for noticeboard questions that involved users have posted, and see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cantaloupe2#Cantaloupe2.27s concerns about selective notification for the relevant section of the RfCU talk page. This is just an invitation for extra eyes in a place where hopefully more editors will see it, since the RfCU assistance board and Canvassing talk page seem to tend to be quiet. Thanks! Dreamyshade ( talk) 01:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Short answer: It's complicated.

Long answer:

• You can generally invite anyone you want to help you draft the initial RFC/U page, even though they are likely to support only "your side". Those who choose to help with the draft will inevitably notice when it's gone live, but that can't really be helped. Similarly, if you happen to discuss drafting it on your user talk page, then people watching your user talk page are inevitably going to be notified of the dispute.
• If the RFC/U is prompted by a specific, recent incident or two, then you probably should invite all of the participants in those recent discussions, regardless of which "side" they're on. This might be done at an article talk page or noticeboard, if that was the site of the dispute, rather than through individual messages at each person's user talk page. (You wouldn't, however, go to a busy noticeboard like ANI and leave a note that says "Remember that discussion two weeks ago? Well, I'm starting an RFC/U".)
• If the dispute is centered on pages with a connection to a WikiProject, then a general invitation at the WikiProject would be appropriate. For example, if the RFC/U is about someone's approach to new page patrolling, then you may leave a neutrally worded invitation at WT:NPP.

The way we make this fair is by allowing the 'accused' editor to do the same: He may, for example, contact people to help him draft his response to the accusations, leave notes at pages where the dispute played out, mention it on his own user talk page, or contact a WikiProject or other groups of people who are familiar with the issues. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very helpful! I've pointed a link here from the relevant RfCU talk page discussion. Dreamyshade ( talk) 20:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is still watching, I have just closed the "Review" RFC that was here a few months ago, it is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• If the user who is the subject of the RfC doesn't respond, does that mean the RfC automatically gets closed due to inactivity? I ask this because there is a user that had an RfC brought up about him back in 2010, and he still continues that same behavior to this day; and frankly, it boggles my mind as to why he hasn't had a more recent RfC. Several users brought up his conduct in the RfC, but it seems that it was closed simply because he himself didn't respond. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Was the 2010 process an WP:RFCU? or a content-dispute WP:RFC? If it was an RFCU, and the behavior problems persist, the WP:Dispute resolution process suggests that a notice at WP:ANI might be a good next step. If the RfC was content-oriented (i.e. was about the content of an article, and the RfC was in the article's talk page) then the editor's behavior was not truly the subject of the RfC, and the editor has not yet had a behavior-focused process initiated yet. In the latter case, you might consider a notice at WP:ANI or WP:AN as the first step. See WP:Dispute resolution for more details.-- Noleander ( talk) 20:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

People are not required to participate in an RFC/U. If they don't, then anyone who is still upset by the user's behavior can move to another forum for dispute resolution. Noleander's suggestion of AN or ANI is good, because the user's choice to participate or not at those pages will not prevent action from being taken. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. He wasn't on Wikipedia much yesterday, so I'll wait another day and check his contributions. If they persist, I'll go to ANI. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Could someone close my RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#2nd order disambiguation by birth date - RFC. I seem to have defined the wrong scope of the issue and posted it at the wrong page. I would like to withdraw my RFC nomination.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I request uninvolved parties to kindly look into the matter Shabiha ( talk) 22:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. Sources are not required to be non-neutral or non-partisan.

If you want to start an RFC, you need to follow the step-by-step directions on WP:RFC. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Input is needed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conflict_Resolution#How_is_this_project_different_from_Dispute_Resolution_project to determine if a new project (and perhaps a new DR process) is needed. -- Noleander ( talk) 19:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have just opened a formal RFC there as well. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The bot never added my RfC. It can be found, here. Casprings ( talk) 04:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the bot hasn't run this task for about three days. I'll leave a note for the bot operator. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm involved in a dispute at WP:Spelling. The other party says that because the RfC has generated no consensus (It hasn't been thirty days but it's been a while), then the original text must be restored. That doesn't sound so unreasonable, but the version that the other party maintains is the "original" contains said other party's changes but not mine. Is revert-to-original the rule? If so, which version of the text counts as the original? The version that was there before either of us started changing the page or a version from some other point in time? Levels heads would be welcome, but clarifying the rule would certainly help. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 05:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer wrote within my summary at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jax 0677. Can I have an uninvolved admin remove this text, which has been placed on the talk page? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done by non-admin NE Ent 20:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

How do we extend an RFC beyond 30 days?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Once an RFC closes, what do I do? Should I undo RFC bot ( talk · contribs) edits?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You change the date per the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending_RfCs (middle of the third paragraph). Yes, if it's closed, you'll need to revert the bot, but the bot will edit war with you, so you've got to change the first date stamp at the same time. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there any sort of template/hatnote that can be placed at the top of an article to notify editors of an ongoing RfC? I know there's a list of ways to advertise an RfC, but such a notice seems like it would be the most effective way to get interested editors involved.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of one. I think you'd use the issue-specific tag (e.g., {{ POV}}) and link to the correct talk-page section in that tag. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Some months ago, after a lengthy discussion, we had a RfC about different collages illustrating the article about Istanbul (at that time FAC, and now FA, but not yet on the main page). At the end, consensus was reached. Now, after barely 4 months, another user opened a new RfC about the same collage. The pictures that he wants to be removed are the same which were in discussion 4 months ago. Should we have a permanent thread on the Talk page about this collage? My opinion is that in this case there is a misuse of this instrument, at least until a totally new collage will be prepared and discussed. Would it not be possible to define under which circumstances an RfC about the same subject can be started again? Thanks, Alex2006 ( talk) 07:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There are no set rules, and because so many different circumstances exist, there shouldn't be any set rules.

Usually, if someone new starts an RFC on something that was settled recently, it's because the new person didn't know about the old discussion. In that case, it's useful to tell the new person where the old discussion can be found in the page archives. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what we did, but he just ignored it, telling us that he does not feel himself bound to the results, since he did not join the discussion then. Alex2006 ( talk) 07:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Four months is a bit short. On the other hand, if the new user was not involved in the prior RfC, they may have some new insights or input that may produce a different outcome. See WP:Consensus can change. I'd suggest trying to persuade the new editor to wait another 4-6 months before trying to change the status quo; but if they refuse, then it looks like you are in for another RfC or DRN. The 2nd time around, consider getting the RfC formally closed .. that may help make the decision stick for a year or two. -- Noleander ( talk) 03:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! No, the objections are always the same (and, BTW, I partially agree with him, but I accepted the POV of the majority). What I told him is that this collage has been evaluated during the FA process, and that we should wait at least until the article appears on the main page (i.e. 3-4 months from now), but I was plainly ignored... Alex2006 ( talk) 07:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Is some bot stopped thanks? I set up Talk:Flag_of_Northern_Ireland#RfC: Should the Flag of Northern Ireland article show the flag of Ireland? two days ago and it still isn't listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. Dmcq ( talk) 14:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It's listed now. Blueboar ( talk) 16:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

==RfC: Is the photo in the History section relevant?==

{{rfc|hist}}

Should the "History" section contain a photograph of the ship? ~~~~

Only the last line goes on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography and thus must contain a full description of what comments are being requested on. WykiP ( talk) 13:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Is your concern that some people will believe that the "==RfC: Is the photo in the History section relevant?==" will appear there? AFAICT, this hasn't historically led to very much confusion. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry missed this first time round. It has ruined my RfC here to the extent that discussion of this significant guideline change has stalled.

I presume I'm not the only one. WykiP ( talk) 11:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an uncommon problem, but easily fixed: just change the text to include your question. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Bots revert any user edits to that page. Shall I work on a draft to clarify WP:RFC? WykiP ( talk) 18:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear: change the text on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The article talk page isn't a problem. It's the RfC page that doesn't say what it should say because there's no advice on this page as to what to put in that field. WykiP ( talk) 20:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The text on the RFC page is copied directly and exactly from the article talk page to the RFC listing page by a bot. Whatever text you put after the RFC template and before the first time stamp gets copied. If you don't like what the bot is copying, then you need to change what you put in that space. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to report a problem with an RfC, but the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates page is not rendering correctly. The wikitable is not being displayed, at least for me. Jonesey95 ( talk) 03:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The bot doesn't 'do' tables. Furthermore, ten paragraphs plus two tables is not "brief". Someone needs to write a simple, initial summary, followed either by a regular signature or by just a datestamp (five tildes: ~~~~~). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I tried to fix this: I added the signature of the originating editor (Risker) after the 1st paragraph. -- Noleander ( talk) 10:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Additions are in the third step in italics. Nothing else has been changed. Changes are to prevent newcomers to the RfC process ending up with a non-descriptive on a RfC list that cannot be corrected because the bots revert all changes on those pages. WykiP ( talk) 17:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Improved wording

1. Include a brief, neutral yet complete statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template. Only this statement, not the section header, will be copied by the bot to the separate RfC list. Sign the statement with ~~~~ (name and date) or ~~~~~ (just the date) ... WykiP ( talk) 22:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at ... but at that point in the guideline, the "RfC bot" has not been mentioned yet ... so that instruction will confuse readers. Let me see if I can improve it somehow. -- Noleander ( talk) 12:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Step (3) already contained instructions that the stmt must be "brief, neutral and complete"; and elaborations on those 2 of those three attributes were below in the "Neutral and brief" subsection; so I put the "dont assume section title" guidance in that subsection. -- Noleander ( talk) 12:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

In an of 11:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC), marked as "Maintenance", the RFC bot deleted the text field of the rfcquote template for the RfC about the Sazerac Company. So now there is no mention on the RfC page of the issue involved in the request. I left a note on the Talk page of the RFC bot itself, but have not gotten a response. Is there a way to fix that? — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

How strange. Usually, if the bot does something like this, then it fixes itself on the next run, but it hasn't happened in this case, and it hasn't updated any RFC pages for a couple of days now. Did you change anything at the talk page shortly before this happened? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

On the target article's Talk page, someone accidentally inserted an extra signature in the section heading just above the RfC template in this edit. I then deleted the extra sig in this edit. I don't think anything inside the RfC request was affected by that, and I can't think of anything else that could be related. — BarrelProof ( talk) 11:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the bot seems a bit inactive, I've manually reverted the change. I have no idea why this problem has occurred. I agree with you that those changes are unlikely to have caused the problem. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The bot deleted it again. I just restored it manually again. Probably the bot will delete it again, but I don't know what else to do. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither do I, except that you can click here and list it manually. You'll have to manually de-list it in a couple of weeks, too. You've got a short, simple, non-formatted question. This frustrating problem shouldn't be happening to you. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted the bot action again. Next time I'll probably take your advice and create a manual request. I think perhaps the comment period should be longer for this topic, since the repeated deletion of the question has reduced the ability to obtain feedback. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Just change the first datestamp to sometime in late April or even May. The bot is a bit simple-minded, so it assumes that the first date stamp it sees after the RFC tag is true and accurate. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure of the correct protocol to list Talk:List_of_gymnasts#A_further_reorganisation_is_tempting_.28now_with_added_RfC.21.29, and would appreciate someone versed in doing so to pick this up, please. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 19:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just wondering why the two RfCs at BP were removed from this page. One was prematurely archived and restored, but the other is still very much active. [13] Can they be restored? I notice that the RfC bot removed them even though they are fairly recent RfCs and their thirty-day period has not yet expired. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the bot got sick and is better now. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a procedural question ... if a user has voiced their opinion !vote twice on a single RfC, I was wondering what is the standard process? Ask the user to merge them into a single entry? Strike through the second entry? Just leave it and hope whomever closes it spots that there are multiples? I'm not frequently following any particular RfCs, so not sure of the standard established practice, and didn't see anything on this page for guidance. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There are generally not one size fits all rules for situations in Wikipedia. Asking the user to combine them, or pointing out it was there second statement would be fine if done in neutral terms. Striking out would not be good. NE Ent 01:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It is common for editors to register two or three separate comments in an RfC (e.g. user later had some additional thoughts). It is only misleading if they state "Oppose" or "Support" two or three times. If they do the latter, you should, as NE Ent says, politely ask them to rectify it. If they do not fix it, you should post a note underneath both their !votes which points out the other !vote. -- Noleander ( talk) 16:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It also depends on the RFC. Some of them are more like discussions, in which case this is normal, than lists of isolated comments. You might also consider the possibility that the user forgot that s/he had previously commented. I've certainly done that before. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This was a case where they had inserted two bolded bulleted opinions. It's resolved now, I asked the user to merge them it was peaceably resolved. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 15:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What does !votes mean? — BarrelProof ( talk) 14:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's short-hand for "not a vote". Basically, I'm trying to indicate that I recognize that these are not straight votes; but that the structure used for RfCs, deletion discussions, and elsewhere often resemble a vote.

I'm pretty sure it derives from computer code (I'm guessing that's where it originated, although I could be mistaken and there was something prior to that used as a model by designers of the coding languages). In many coding languages, and exclamation before a function act as a logical operator, such that != means not equal. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 15:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Perhaps I should have figured that out. In that case, as commented by others, I think it's a rather routine occurrence, although I agree that it's important to make sure it doesn't look like repeated voting (e.g. because of the use of bolding) and it can get annoying when someone starts trying to add a rebuttal to every comment made by anyone who disagrees with them. — BarrelProof ( talk) 16:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The correct answer to this question is that !votes are not actually votes (which is why this most bothersome of terms, properly understood by approximately nobody in the community, should be retired). If someone makes two comments, and they are contradictory, the appropriate response is to treat them as if the editor had provided a pro and con argument. Obviously comments which do not provide an argument at all should be ignored entirely as usual. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 12:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Comes from C (programming language) where it means negative (e.g. != is "not equals"). The official line is they're not votes, but if that was true why would any care if someone ("didn't") vote twice?? NE Ent 03:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)