Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4

Clarify
The opening section has only the template. This is not a valid RfC: there is no question to be answered; there is no signature of the person asking the (non-existent) question; there is no timestamp from which the thirty-day RfC duration may be measured. Please add a neutrally-worded question, signature and timestamp here, in accordance with WP:WRFC. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jtmoon@undefined - you really need to expand, neutrally, on the conclusions of the previous RfCs. There are several questions asked there and answered.  You are now (seeing your discussion) basing this RfC on your reading of the !votes of the previous RfCs, not on their conclusions.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * reping: . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Most editors do not create a lot of RfCs and it is unreasonable to expect any experience in writing them. Furthermore, WP:WRFC is purely advisory, recommends but does not require it to be phrased as a question, says nothing about a timestamp, or about 30 days. I think you are thinking of WP:RFC Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've raised a request for the Bot to be looked at. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm thinking of WP:WRFC, the bit about specificity. Note that WRFC is linked from WP:RFC. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The statement is neutral and brief, and as I have stated before: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy — RfCs are not overturned on formalities — thats not how we do things. (WP:WRFC contains a number of suggestions focused on making the result unambiguous. Any result here is already unambiguous — we don't need to adhere blindly to such things.) Carl Fredik   💌 📧 09:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What statement? There is nothing at all between the and the  . -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

NOINDEX
Please stop removing NOINDEX. RFCs are not to be indexed, see http://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt (also http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11261). This Archive.is RFCs are malicioulsly placeed not under /wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/ to evade the indexing prohibition. That's especially weird when done by the editors arguing for respecting robots.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.107.123.132 (talk • contribs)
 * There is no policy or guidelines prescribing that RfCs need to be under that tree, nor that RfCs should be noindexed. Moreover, the comment that it is maliciously placed suggest bad intent by the creators of the RfC.  And many of the people removing it actually do not care about respect for robots.txt.  Please get your arguments straight.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Expired RfC?
Why is LegoBot removing the RfC tag as expired? It looks like it started on 5/17, so we should only be about half-way in, no? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because there was no proper RfC intro, see my comments at . But nobody cared, other than myself. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)