Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 10

Good morning, Wikipedia!
As soon as everything is worked out, requesting comments will be as easy as filling out a simple form! --User:RFC posting script on behalf of User:Messedrocker 09:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried posting using the postingscript but I received no email so my post seems lost. So I did it manually. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is because there is no e-mail address configured for your account. &mdash;harej // change the rules 03:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Refactor request
I believe that the brief, neutral statement for the Talk:Abortion RfC on the Politics subpage is neither brief nor neutral. Could an uninvolved party please examine the situation and consider re-writing the summary to comply with the instructions. Thanks!-Andrew c [talk] 02:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone?-Andrew c [talk] 15:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Help formatting RfC request?
Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology currently has two listings that are improperly formatted. From what I can tell, actual talk pages where the RfC requests have been made have been updated for the RfCs requests to format properly. Is there a way to get these requests to update, or are the requests still formatted incorrectly? --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking a closer look at the Talk:Extra_EA-300 request, I don't see what the problem could be, but it doesn't look like the editor tried to fix it. Looks like something in the RfC request has the bot stumped.  Can anyone figure out how to fix it? --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was caused by the italics formatting which is now removed. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Posting error
Page and section is here. I tried to use the bot to post a RfC, but got unable to login error. I added the and  tags to the page, and posted manually - now have an error message on page. What part did I miss? - (at tag on my talk would be appreciated) — Ched ~  (yes?) 18:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Two topic areas
What if there are two relevant topic areas for an RFC? Can both be used? If there's a sharply divided RFC listed in Politics, would it be okay to also list it in Society, sports, law, and sex?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, editors normally will just manually list the RfC on additional topic areas as needed. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC wording
Is agreeing on the wording of an RFC with other editors in a dispute a necessery step before posting one? If so should the instructions make this more clear (they seem to imply the issue itself should be talked about, but not the RFC). In cases where consensus on wording cannot be reached what is the procedure? Artw (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No; an RfC, unlike mediation, doesn't require consent of all parties. All that the "talk" part means is that parties are expected to try to communicate their issues and if that fails to resolve the dispute, that's when RfC's are filed in the hope of receiving third party input. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

add article links to RfC requests?
minor point: would it be possible to have the bot add links to the articles on RfCs as well as links to the talk page discussion? it would make life very slightly easier on me. -- Ludwigs 2 18:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

RFCBio template not working.
Could you take a look at Talk:Keith_Olbermann? I can't the RFC template to work, and the RFCtool doesn't work for me either for some reason. I believe I am using the syntax correctly, but it is possible I made a silly mistake. It seems that it is also possible that the syntax hasn't been updated for manual users since the RFCtool exists (but the tool didn't work for me). Thanks. Ann arbor street (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The section is here. Ann arbor street (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot Task RFC
Hi there. I have found the correct section for an RFC for a bot task but is there a correct template to use also? Please advise  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 08:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Move of RfC: Article style from Talk:Harold Pinter to Talk:Harold Pinter/archive7
Is is acceptable for an editor to move an ongoing RfC from the article's talk page to an archive? I refer to to the RfC which has been moved to Talk:Harold Pinter/archive7. It surely should stay on the main talk page until resolved or stale. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No it is not acceptable; I've reverted his archiving. And yes, it should stay on the main talk page until resolved or stale; a bot should archive it after an appropriate period of time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ncmvocalist, I appreciate that. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem; hope you and all the other involved editors at the article can resolve the issues (that brought on the RfC) soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note please that "stale" is something that editors can decide on: useful discussions may take longer than 30 days (in which case, change the date stamp to ward off the bot), nor does ever single RfC need to stay open for the full 30 days (in which case, remove the template to have the bot de-list it during the next run).   WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC/User time
Ncmvocalist removed this text, indicating apparently that there is a specific time length that all RfC/Users are supposed to take to resolve the dispute. It's my understanding that this is wrong: That active RfC/User cases can and should stay open for more than 30 days if necessary, and that inactive and/or resolved ones can and should be closed early if appropriate. Does anyone else think that we should impose a one-size-fits-all time line on RfC/User disputes, or can we go back to saying that "There is no specific time limit on RFC/U discussions"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of agreement on your previous bold changes, it would've been wiser to have discussed your bold insertion first. The issue is not with your understanding; it is rather with your choice of wording and the place you chose to insert this. My indication was that it was "not quite" within the ambit of agreed changes to this page. If you'd like to make more proposals, then I suggest we resume the discussion above rather than pretend that your bold edit was longstanding text, when the reality is, it wasn't, and was deliberately left out of the archiving section as making the page unnecessarily verbose with redundant content. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only person that opposed my previous edits was you. I see that you've not only re-closed an RfC/U with recent comments, but also re-arranged the views to suit your personal idea of how different editors' views should be classified.
 * Does anyone think that an RfC/U with recent comments should be closed exactly 30 days after it was open, regardless of whether the dispute is resolved? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's quite funny; I see you attempting to game the system. You made your view some 18 days after the last comment on the RfC quite clearly after it become inactive - trying to keep it active in the hope of receiving more support for your view is not happening; it's a dead horse. I reverted your ill-considered edit prior to an arbitrator doing so; in the future, you may just get yourself into further trouble. You are also by no means an outsider in the dispute to warrant staying in the section that quite clearly states "Outside views". (I note there has been some inconsistencies with respect to how this works in the past, which is regrettable, but an effort is nevertheless being made to prevent that from continuing.) And finally, you remain the only person who finds problems with the system to the point you try to make changes without discussion. I suggest you stop beating a dead horse and move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at any of the pages discussed in that dispute? That there were few comments on the RfC/U page does not mean that the dispute wasn't being addressed in other ways.  The RfC/U system does not actually require that every single comment happen on the RfC/U page.
 * Again: does ANYONE think that RfC/U pages have to be closed after exactly 30 days?  We explicitly allow article RfCs to extend their discussion time -- at the whim of any editor that wants to change the timestamp that the bot looks at.  Do we want to  insist that RfC/U pages be handled differently?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that you continue to remain the only editor who has a problem with RfC norms that have far outlived your presence at this venue, in my opinion, speaks volumes. Please let it go, and stop beating a dead horse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist, I don't believe that your assertion that Wikipedia's norms actually demand that an RfC/U with reasonably recent comments must be closed at exactly 30 days after its filing. What's wrong with waiting a week after the most recent substantive comments?  And I see absolutely no support for your 30-day magic timer here -- not one single editor willing to speak up in favor of rigid adherence to a calendar.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that nobody is interested in your petty squabbles speaks volumes; there was a clear consensus formed by myself, an administrator and another arbitrator against your fanciful views. You find out point A, then point B, and synthesise them to come to point C - I have no interest in responding to an editor who's habitually used this method at this venue, and rather foolishly thinks that it justifies his/her position at all times, when really, Point C was never the issue. This combined with a declared inability to stop beating a dead horse is troubling. I just hope this isn't the style of editing that others have to encounter from you in the content areas of Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you choose to disclose the forum in which you and two other editors supposedly had this discussion? Or is this the sort of thing that the rest of the community gets no say in?
 * Do you think that if we asked the other editors that they would support cutting off an active RFC/U discussion at 30 days exactly? Or do you think that they might want editors to use some discretion?  (Whether or not Dicklyon's second RfC/U should have been considered active is something that reasonable people could disagree about.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rest of the community? You remain the only editor who tendentiously argues on every single bold edit that does not go your way - I will not, in any venue, respond to an editor who refuses to stop beating a very bloody and mangled horse. You will receive no more of my time when you continue to adamantly stick yourself on your self-made point C - when you finally decide to actually stick to point A and B, this discussion may begin to go somewhere. Discussion closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what you have decided points A, B, and C are. My point is solely that there is no specific time limit on RFC/U discussions -- and never has been, as you can see by this March 2004 statement of archiving rules.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you finally have the courtesy to actually decide to respond to what I've said - point A and point B are contained in the reason I reverted your bold edit and asked for a bit more discussion (my first reply in what appears to have been a pointless section, so far) - point C was when you decided to go on quite a tangent to try and waste time establishing something that I quite clearly stated in my reply as not being the issue; and ironically, you're still doing that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite your efforts to change my words, I have only had one point throughout this discussion: There is no firm deadline for RfC/U.  There never has been.  Many end much earlier than 30 days.  A few take a little longer (especially for users that only edit once a week.)  IMO, people involved in RfC/Us should be told that from the outset, instead of surprising them with that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe I'll help you understand precisely why we are on separate pages. You've only had one point throughout this discussion, and you've defined it (I agree) - but that's precisely what I've referred to as point C; that was never the issue - you did not need to establish that as that was never an issue - you were beating a very bloody and mangled horse - do you follow? Point A and B had something to do with what I noted in my original comment: "your choice of wording and the place you chose to insert this". Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The 30-day timer was never an issue, and you closed an RfC/U over the objections of involved editors because it had exceeded the 30-day timer. Can you reconcile these two facts?  I can't.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You only have one fact; 30-day timer was never an issue. The other is not a fact as the RfC/U wasn't closed because of concerns it exceeded a 30-day timer - what was specified at Tznkai's talk page was that you'd made an addition 18 days after the previous one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And posting an update on the dispute after two weeks of discussions that happened to take place on another page breaks exactly which unwritten rule?
 * Note, too, that the prompt response on Tznkai's page (by another editor) was "Thirty days, that's all that RFCs are supposed to run" -- which clearly indicates that there was an effort to enforce an overall time limit, not due to inactivity. (Four days after the most recent substantive change is hardly proof of inactivity, after all, as you have agreed below.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Posting an update isn't so much of an issue, but (I suspect that) the reason 30 days was specified was to prevent an RfC losing its purpose and turning into an attack zone. My comment agreed with the effect of closing the RfC, but I did note that generally, time is given to other editors to read and endorse any new views, yet so much time has elapsed [aka 18 days before it was posted] that a few days is sufficient. As a side note, I am aware that the arbitrator posted a request to the administrators noticeboard requesting the closure of a couple of the older RfCs - but I can't remember whether it was made before you made your view, or after. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I, on the other hand, assume that the editor sloppily conflated the default timer set on the RfCbot with the actual standards, which brings us full circle: Some people erroneously believe that there is a mandatory 30-day maximum time limit on RfC/U pages.  No such deadline exists.  No such deadline has ever existed.  Having an arbitrary deadline is stupid:  closing an RfC/U prematurely could interfere with resolution and irritate editors that feel they're making progress.  It could even result in another one being opened:  Wikipedia doesn't need a WP:Requests for comment/Dicklyon 3 immediately on the heels of #2.  This guideline should just say, in plain, simple language, that there is no maximum overall timer.  This is supposed to be WP:Dispute resolution, with the emphasis on resolution, not "run out of time due to arbitrary closing deadlines".
 * The question is why you oppose adding this statement. It documents actual practice.  No editor except yourself opposes it.  What's your problem?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Argh, please don't make me pull my hair out. The assertion that I oppose the idea of adding the statement per se is what I've referred to as non-existent issue C. What I do oppose however (issue A), is adding the statement without qualifying it (such as without including other relevant bits of actual practice noted below). If we were to add the statement as originally made by you (without any of the sorts of qualifications suggested below), then I oppose where you chose to place that text (issue B) - further up the page under guidelines may be okay, but even that doesn't require urgency. Those two issues are what are in need of discussion; not the non-existent issue. If this wasn't clear by 07:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC), then I hope it is now. Can I open the new subsection on issue A, or are you still unconvinced and wish to once again direct the discussion to non-existent issue C?
 * As to the earlier part of your comment, please see what I said to unoni below and consider the fact that Dickylon made no change to his response at any time. As Risker noted, your concerns were largely concerning content over the contributor. The fact that the major conduct concern (as endorsed by the community) was resolved is merely a further justification to close the RfC. Tendentious problem editing, if it is occurring, can be handled in up to 4 more steps (though only 2 are necessary): article RfC, then request for administrator intervention. Whether you need, or wish to try, the mediation committee and ArbCom, are simply dependent on the case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you don't "oppose" the statement, and you "agree" with the statement, but you immediately removed it for being wrong anyway. That makes no sense.  If you don't oppose it, and you agree with it, why didn't you leave it alone?  (You are allowed to skip the 'revert' step in WP:BRD.  In fact, if you don't oppose it and you do agree with it, why don't you put it back right now?
 * BTW, Dick Lyon's problematic behavior, which includes profanity and comments directed at individual editors based on their race and sexual orientation, crosses multiple related articles and has already failed formal mediation twice in the last couple of months. It's true that my concerns are primarily about his misrepresentation of sourced facts to push his POV, but the RfC concerned more than that (and my update discussed those as well).  Of course, you'd have already known all of that if you had actually read the RfC that you insisted on closing for "inactivity" four days after a major contribution to it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop making gross assumptions of bad faith ("Of course, you'd have already known all of that if you had actually read the RfC"), particularly when they are ill-founded, and untrue. Your above comment also comprises of further exaggerations, misrepresentations, and unfortunate attempts to subvert attempts to reach a consensus on both wording + placement of the text, and when combined with such behaviour, is rather tiresome. Wikipedia will not turn into your battleground because you remain the only editor who disruptively continues to beat a very dead horse; RfC/U cannot accomplish anything more than what it has already with regards to Dicklyons. I also note that this reinforces the idea that you're in fact engaging in some of the type of behaviour that you allege against Dick Lyons.
 * Stop repeatedly misstating my position despite being told otherwise: it's utterly disruptive behaviour. I oppose the statement in its wording and placement; not in the idea that you're trying to carry forward. There's been a suggestion on changing a norm for RfC/U so that proposal needs to be examined in the light of current events - the faster you stop being disruptive, the sooner we can arrive at a consensus on the actual issues that resulted in your ill-considered bold edit being reverted, rather than the ones that you rather sadly imagined were the issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, I was just going to add something similar about your "utterly disruptive" behavior. What bothers you about the wording?  What complaint do you have about putting this piece of information about closing with all the rest of the information about closing?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good thing you didn't, or frivolous accusations would be added to the list. The wording, on its own, too easily misleads editors into believing RfCs do not close until they agree on something, particularly if they fail to read beyond that line. It's about weight. That's something I want to discuss in a separate subsection so it makes more sense.
 * For now, I'm opposing the placement in the archive section. On the other hand, I have no problem putting it in the guidelines section, but I'd rather discuss that first than do the ill-considered thing of boldly inserting (without discussion) when we're so frequently disagreeing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

arb break
(outendenting)I just now noticed this. As one of the editors involved in the RFC it would have been courteous if the one who wished to close it would have notified us to see if the dispute had really been resolved. In reality it hasn't, more like taken a break. Without getting into the meat of that mess. I don't think there is a limit on the time for these. They should be able to go on until an actual resolution is found. So far as I can see there has been not actual change in the way the subject of the RFC conducts himself. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hfarmer, RfC/U's cannot obligate a user to do anything they don't want to. The dispute resolution process doesn't work so that you just continue working at Wikiquette alert, RFC, etc. forever or indefinitely until (perhaps, by way of miracle) it becomes resolved. RFC/U is however, intended to try to compel a user to listen to the community voluntarily.
 * I think it's quite clear that the subject was completely unresponsive to the RfC/U - community input. If after a period of time resolution cannot be found at one stage of dispute resolution (because he continues to engage in behaviour similar to that outlined by PhilKnight), then you should interpret that to mean that this stage is exhausted, and it's time to proceed up to the next stage in Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As a Quick note; I would say that if you are compelling someone to listen, however the means, then by dint of nature it isn't voluntary. As far as the article indicates, there really isn't a specific amount of time. What's the harm in making it clearly labeled at the outset? If any sort of timeline was going to be involved, I'd suggest the same sort they use on policies - seven days after the last post. If discussion is happening in other non-specific venues, though, then that's definitely something we'd want to handle manually, as opposed to using any sort of automated method. Crickel (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your view. I would be happy with a standard that suggested no overall time limit, but archived RfC/U pages that didn't have any activity for more than a week.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very good suggestion; but I'm not sure 7 days is necessarily enough - as this is the second last resort in dispute resolution, perhaps we can agree on 10-14 days? After that, it's just a matter of wording and placement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Two weeks of inactivity is fine with me; going back to the old standard of 30 days' inactivity is fine with me. I'm also fine with defining inactivity as requiring something substantive, instead of a simple endorsement or a keep-alive note.  I simply want something that tells people plainly that there's no ticking timebomb based on the date of original filing (thus the limited nature of my edit:  "There is no specific time limit on RFC/U discussions").  I've been involved to varying degrees with RfC/U pages that were interrupted because of unrelated blocks (e.g., User:Guido den Broeder) and delayed due to one participant only being available once or twice a week.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll open a separate subsection for this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be an extremely bad idea to have RFCs understood as resolved by anything but a RESOLVED tag. RFC/U are inherently drama ridden, but they shouldn't be able to be 'ignored away'. Honestly I am also opposed to archiving of them due to 'inactivity' for the same reasons, they are either resolved or not. Unomi (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of RfCs; they are voluntary - it is inevitable that some disputes will not be resolved, in which case the RfC needs to be closed so the matter may be escalated in the next step in dispute resolution - usually, towards non-voluntary restrictions. Keeping it open would destroy the purpose of having the remaining steps in dispute resolution, and might in fact, be counter productive when editors realise that little is achieved by keeping it open for longer. Does that make sense? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It does, and you are right, I did misunderstand. I extrapolated a situation where I had an AN/I filed against me that was subsequently left languishing in archives without any sense of closure, to this topic. I don't know that it should be set in stone but it seems reasonable that an RfC of this sort will either be able to be resolved outright, agreed to be assisted by mediation or escalated to AN/I etc. within 30 days. I do think that there is a difference between closing based on moving to more appropriate venues, resolution and 'inactivity'. If a person can take the time to file an RfC they should be able to take the time to close it 'properly', perhaps with some prodding by a bot regarding inactivity. I don't know if this sounds overly argumentative or not. Unomi (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are varying degrees of resolution; sometimes the 'resolution' is simply that the parties silently and even subconsciously decide to have no more direct contact with each other. In those cases, it's hard for involved people to say that it's as resolved as it's going to get; it might even be counterproductive if one of the editors wants to "win".  But perhaps we could suggest that involved editors might optionally choose to place a "resolved" tag on an RfC/U if all parties agree that it's settled.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no real problems with placing a resolved tag, though, the RfC/U archives specifies which RfCs were closed due to agreement among the parties. There may not be a need to close due to inactivity if disputes are moved to other venues on the basis of lack of resolution. However, we still recognise inactivity because a dispute may be unresolved, yet parties may be trying to disengage. One must remember that dispute resolution is, after all, a very exhausting process - most especially for the parties. It would not be a surprise if people who can end up deciding on disputes at the final stage frustrate parties to the point they leave the project; sometimes, an overall detriment, after which the rest of the community stays in murmers over what a corrupt political system we're stuck in. But I digress.... In other cases, people are frustrated even before attempting to receive intervention at the final stages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Capital letter or not
Hi. Some paragraphs (headings) in articles are sometimes only a brief summary of a subject, they instead refer to a main article (as in "Main article: Solar core", see example here: Sun#Core). I believe it looks nice with a capital letter there, but I've seen in many articles that not all have a capital letter in the article name of the main article.

In dictionaries, entries rarely begin with an upper case letter unless it's a name. I therefore wonder if this edit, made by me, is correct. /Tense (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that looks right. The rules (and often the editors best suited to answer such questions) are at WP:MOSCAPS.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I did not know of that page. /Tense (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate RFC
An editor with a history of POV pushing has started an RfC (science) about whether or not he should create a quote page on Wikiquote as a repository for pro-POV quotes (marketing materials, from the looks of it). All of the replies have pointed out that Wikiquote is not part of Wikipedia, and therefore this is a pointless conversation, but the editor doesn't seem to care.

Can we close this RfC as being inappropriate? (Link is here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've closed it; it is indeed inappropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Question about Table Formatting
This is making me insane. It's such a simple thing, but I can't find this information. I want to know the commands for tables in Wiki formatting to specify the pixel width of the cells in a table. I want them all the same width. None of this conforming every column to the width of the widest entry plus whatever cellpadding you specify. I'd also like the command to make every entered text to be centered in its cell. You'd think this would be the simplest most basic function in the world, consequently one of the first instructions they'd give in their tutorial, but it's not! I can't find it!

Can someone please look at this and tell me what I need to fix this? I'd like all the columns the same width, not conformed to the width of the widest entry, and everything centered. Also, the text of the column headers doesn't all have to be on one line. In fact, I'd prefer they weren't. PatrickLMT (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it in the above. you could also use specific values, such as 'width="100px"'.  note, however, that in some cases the browser might not (for reasons of its own) respect the width request.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ah, sorry, missed the bit about centering. I think you need to add a 'text-align: center' specification to each cell.  mediawiki software is awfully picky about style specifications; I've never been able to figure out how to specify centering for every td element in a table globally (though you'd think that would be a simple task).  -- Ludwigs 2  20:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. Fast service!  Thank you!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickLMT (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * no problem. also, I just noticed that you have an additional problem that's goofing things up.  I've corrected it, but you had a typo (extra {| table beginner at the top).  that seems to have fixed the centering issue as well.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Once I removed the extra style command I had after the style text align, the one I tried to use to specify cell width, the cells all centered themselves. Thank you, again. Very educational and I will be using it again.PatrickLMT (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3
Requests for comment/JzG 3 is not properly certified. Besides Abd, none of the others actually attempted (in earnest) to resolve any issue that is a bona fide dispute. Stale complaints (especially those addressed by prior RfCs) don't count. Actions of JzG that were reviewed by the community and endorsed at other venues (such as the blacklisting) also don't count. To my eye, this RFC looks like a misuse of process. Jehochman Talk 21:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The attempts to resolve the specific dispute in question (JzG's use of tools in disputes around Cold fusion or editors involved with Cold fusion) were found by me and documented in the RfC, and it could not be more clear. The RfC does not raise "stale issues," that is a perception that has been fostered by a series of editors who piled on at the beginning with efforts to redefine what the RfC is about, and there is also an unfortunate use of the RfC by a few, over my protests, to generally bash JzG over, indeed, stale offenses. Jehochman is here showing a serious misunderstanding regarding policy over use of admin tools while involved. Being "right," i.e., being supposedly sustained by the community as to the action itself, isn't a free pass, failure to recuse is still a serious violation, excusable only if there is an emergency. However, suppose Jehochman were to get his way, and, somehow, in spite of ample precedent, the RfC is shut down. What would happen then?


 * It would create immediate grounds for appeal to ArbComm, effort to resolve the dispute with RfC having failed. I think some editors here aren't thinking things through. I would suggest that efforts to encourage JzG to face the issue itself, instead of ranting about me or POV-pushers or whatever, could be much more effective in calming the situation down.


 * Durova, in particular, specifically addressed the issue being considered in the RfC. JzG blew it off. (see also the Petri Krohn discussion of involvement, where JzG denies involvement, then look at the evidence in the RfC and see if that can be sustained, plus see all the comments at the RfAr he filed that he should have refrained from blocking Rothwell himself). The requirements of RfC have been more amply met than I've often seen. It's all linked in the RfC itself. I'm getting the impression that some would have liked to see some raging battle at AN/I over this first. AN/I is not a part of dispute resolution process. It is a poor place to get serious decisions made, it's Wikipedia 911, decent, sometimes, for dealing with emergencies, but not for anything that requires investigation and depth and careful, organized discussion. And what happened three months ago would indeed be moot at AN/I. --Abd (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could we get comments from uninvolved admins. I've got Durova throwing every bit of mud at me she can, threatening to RFC me because I've brought up this issue.  Perhaps her intention here is to drive the issue to arbitration, a venue she considers herself expert at.  Frankly, I dislike bullying very much.  I don't like it one bit when a little gang assembles to harass JzG.  Please, we need help from uninvolved editors here to make some decisions about whether this RFC is properly certified, or not.  Thank you. Jehochman Talk 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Im involved but I dispute the certification of this RFC. This is Abd obsession and he is the only person fully engaged in this dispute. everyone else has walked away - even Guy. Spartaz Humbug! 07:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advertising discussions
Please see Advertising discussions, a proposal I've made to formalise guidelines on where and how the largest discussions should be advertised around Wikipedia to ensure sufficient input to major discussions. Improvements to the page and input on the talk page would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Within one hour?
I tried to use the RFCpol template on Talk:Lega Nord, but it doesn't seem to work for me. It still says it will be listed within an hour some 12h later, but it doesn't show any error message either. Did I do something wrong?--93.45.53.164 (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * sometimes the bot that lists the RfCs is just slow - yours looks fine (except that the "section name" should be the exact name of the talk-page section where the RFC takes place; i've amended that). i hope it shows up on the list soon Sssoul (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin user account Jersey_Devil invalid blocking
Admin Jersey_Devil is blocking users without giving reason on the block page. I suggest you take up this person's admin privilege and revoke his administrator right immediately. This block violation by Jersey_Devil was caused by the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#SamEV. He shouldn't violate his admin privelege by blocking someone when that user didn't insult anyone on this matter. The user blocked is: 24.9.96.166.

I immediatily request Jersey_Devil's violation and revoke of admin privilege immediatily. He also reverted this very contentious topic with "npov" tag and removed the npov tag where there is heated discussion about the article going on for days. Here is his unexplained gross negligence revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans&diff=283512854&oldid=283470015 Someone people respond to this matter appropriately and revoke this user's admin account asap. Onetwo1 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Hispanic and Latino Americans
There has been heated edit warring on the Hispanic and Latino Americans, which resulted in user 24.9.96.166 being blocked by Jersey_Devil without any sort of explanation. We need administrator look into the edit warring on that article. The dispute has been between user "SamEV" and 24.9.96.166 and IP starting with 6 over on that article. Please help with the edit warring dispute on the article and see the talk page under "SamEV" and "Jersey_Devil." There is still NPOV dispute but users SamEV and Jersey_Devil (admin account) are removing the NPOV tag and reverting the article to their liking many times now. Please help. Onetwo1 (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Still not showing up
As I said three days ago, the RFC in Talk:Lega Nord is not being listed. Considering it's been four days since I posted it, there must have been a problem of some kind. Can anybody look into this?--93.45.129.131 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Likewise, an RFC at Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) has not appeared after almost 24 hours... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Same for Talk:Veneto nationalism; I added manually to the RfCpol list... Coldmachine Talk 08:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto for Talk:Interstitial_cystitis Acupuncture and IC (now also added manually). The last time the bot seems to have added an entry appears to have been on April 5th.
 * &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that the problem has been reported to the bot's operator at User_talk:Harej. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The bot inexplicably went down again (probably toolserver reboot) very shortly after I started it back up again. So it is up once more. &mdash;harej 01:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

More than 5 articles tagged with AfD
Please check on Biruitorul's conduct concerning tagging more than 5 articles with AfD (April 15-16, 2009 on contribs). Thanks --Timlight (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the directions for starting an RfC/U, beginning with the requirement that you must have previously attempted to resolve the dispute.
 * This is not the correct forum for announcing the RfC; I have listed your page at the usual place for you. Additionally, MfD is not the correct method for closing an unwanted RfC/U.  In this instance, if you just wait another day, it will be deleted automatically for having failed to be properly certified.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a bit sleepy when I posted this :) Timlight (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved the current unstructured discussion that was at the RfC page to its talk page and replaced the RfC page itself with a stub reminder of the formal requirements. Please look at the example shown in RfC2 for how to proceed. Both pages will be deleted if a properly formed and certified RfC isn't presented within 48hrs from first creation. But seriously, Timlight, I'd suggest you just drop it and we can wrap up peacefully and quickly. You obviously have no case here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Beginning Of The Lightbringer
ive been reserching on some stuff about the lightbringer.. and i got to the merovengians bloodline.. i picked up a theorie, but im not pretty sure how thats related to eachother.. one aricle i read.. it says that theres a possibility that a city in sudan named Meroe could have been named after the merovengians, because the pyramids in Meroe look just like the one in the symbol of the lightbringers.. and that articel also said something about the mummies that were found in Meroe, that they had blond hair and one had a red beard... so is there a possibility that the merovengians had something to do with that? i mean.. of course the black pharaos lived way before the merovengians, but it also could have been that the black pharaos left their country... im really stuch here, so can anyone please help me, if u know anything about this... thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.110.205 (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Overdue RFC
Could somebody close this RFC. It's already there for over a month with very few recent comments. Since I am involved I can't close it myself. Garion96 (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC not appearing here
What's wrong with this RfC? It's not appearing in the list:


 * Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section

-- Brangifer (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC not placed on list after many hours

 * See Template talk:Infobox Single. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 01:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * judging from his/her reply to earlier problems (above), you might try contacting harej. Sssoul (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Need help, please
Can anyone tell me how to add an aticle RfC manually to the history and politics sections? I used the template, but the bot didn't add it. I added it manually, but the bot removed it. 

I asked the person who runs the bot for help -- he removed an old RfC from the same talk page of the article in question, Exodus from Lydda, in case it was confusing the bot, but it made no difference -- the bot then added "RfC error" to the new RfC section on that page. 

Does anyone know how to do this manually so that I don't have to interact with the bot anymore? :-) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken a stab at fixing the template inclusion on the page. We'll see what the bot thinks of it shortly.  They're very picky. --InkSplotch (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Fut Perf. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC signing
What is the rational in this article for suggesting that authors not sign the RFC statement with a signature? It seems like the RFC statement has as much potential for non-neutrality as any other statement does, and that commentators should be able to see who wrote the RFC. That way they can determine if the person who worded the RFC was an active partisan on a previous debate on the issue, and they can be alert to subtle biases in the wording and mentally counteract them. Locke9k (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Describe process for removal of RfC in introductory text??
It would help if top of this page specified how to remove these. Requests_for_comment mentions couple options. My example is from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies where Gilad Atzmon has two, first one less than thirty days which is very specific, and over ridden to some extent by second one, therefore is pretty much passe. Would apply to others where relevant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Proposed solutions" section in RFC/U
See this. Is this too far from the standard RFC format and its intentions, or is it OK to expand it that way? Discussion here, --Enric Naval (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This question is probably moot at the moment. The time to argue for the section and process involved would probably have been a week ago. I'd have supported it then, and, indeed, I opened up questions on the Talk page that would have been similar, and that was reverted out. The RfC is under a motion to close, and, so far, massive support, from both 'sides,' and no opposition. Opening up a new section would be a waste of time, that's why I reverted it back out, supporting Spartaz, who is very much on the other side of this RfC from me. --Abd (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's acceptable: it's a simple cut-and-paste job out of the official alternate form.  (Perhaps you were unaware that the RFC/U page gives you two choices for user dispute pages?  The two buttons on the page are not redundant.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, I hadn't seen that one :O Well, I suppose that closes the matter. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not acceptable; it's one form or the other; not both or neither, particularly so far into an RfC. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Enric, I thought you might be intrigued. ;-)
 * NCM, it is acceptable. The default forms are just suggested formats.  The point is effective dispute resolution, not mindlessly following procedures.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We share the same point, but in that case, it appears you fail to understand effective dispute resolution - in this case anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Grand Jury
Based on an ongoing RfC where I noted this, can we get this to say that RfC's are not grand jury proceedings and that users should not going digging through another users contributing and talk page history looking for other incidents to add (or at the very least they have to talk to those invovled beforehand)? Soxwon (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on content dispute resolution
There's a Request for comment on content dispute resolution which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal process broken?
I have noticed several listed items which it appears that User: RFC Bot removed the RFC from the stale discussion however it appears that they are not properly feeding ("unfeeding"?) WP: RFC/A. As an example the history of Talk:Moe's Southwest Grill appears that the tag was removed at 02:27, 27 April 2009 properly 30 days from the original request however the article still appears on the list of open RFCs nearly 2 weeks later. Ngaskill (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Manual entries
Can we have an "add an entry" section on the table listing the different categories? This would enable people to add entries manually without having to hunt around to do it. We used to have this, and it was a lot faster than trying to negotiate with the bot. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, each RFC listing page has "add a discussion" links so that people may add RFCs to the list manually. &mdash;harej 00:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Change To Example For Pedagogy
I thought that as it stands, the a Preview example seems a little outofplace. I thought I would flesh out some discussion, so the reason field would be more distinguishable from the rest of the discussion text:

Is the photograph in the "History" section relevant to the article?

vs.

Does the photograph in the "History" section seem to belong in another section? Or, maybe, should we rather move it to another article instead? --~

Makes more sense as this should be a preview, and look the way it looks in the edit box. Considering we should always sign our posts, that's why I included the marcro signature. If you guys agree, I think this is what we should replace it with.68.148.149.184 (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC posting tool works once more
Just letting you know that it works again. &mdash;Harej (via posting script) 13:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive of past RfCs
We seem to have Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive but no archives for content or policy issue. This needs to be fixed. The easy way to do it, instead of relying on manual adding to the list, which is hardly consistent, is to use automatic categories. Future RfCs should add the page to a category, and we should categorize past RfCs. I've created Category:Requests for comment as a subcat to Category:Wikipedia surveys and polls as the first step. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable, but what about links being broken when the relevant talk page is archived? Rd232 talk 14:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

HOW DO YOU CREATE YOUR OWN WIKI PAGE FOR SOMETHING, A COMPANY OR ORGANIZATION? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulvan (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Latest updates to RFC
I am delighted to announce that I have completed writing the next generation of automated RFC management.

Confusing RFC tags are going away and never coming back.

New RFC tags will be centered around a single template, rfctag. To file an RFC for a certain category, you would do, where "category" is the corresponding category code. That is all you need to do to get the RFC bot's attention, and the RFC bot will infer the rest. This is a giant leap beyond the current system, which has confused too many and has turned an essential Wikipedia function into something which requires a Ph.D. to operate.

I would also like to announce the creation of two new RFC categories: Unsorted, for when no one adds a category to their rfctag (or a non-existent one), and "WikiProjects and collaborations", to bring attention to discussions about WikiProjects and to advertise collaboration efforts.

The launch of this new system, and the subsequent obsolescence of the old system, will take place in the coming days. It will be apparent when the change has occurred. In the mean time, the current system will still be the way of doing things.

I hope these changes will make using RFC a more simpler experience, with fewer strings attached and a better learning curve. &mdash;harej 04:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the new reftag to Talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide well over an hour ago what did I do wrong? --PBS (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the deal. When coding the bot I made the ignorant assumption that everyone would type out the tag, then hit enter, then begin writing the description. You did not do that, and come to think of it, you really should not have to. I don't have access to the code right now, but I will be sure to fix it as soon as possible. &mdash;harej 15:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you edited my edit :-) But the bot still does not seem to have picked up the message :-(  Just speculation but can the bot handle two RFCs on the same talk page? -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it cannot. If that RFC in particular is #2 on that page, that is why the bot is not acknowledging it. &mdash;harej 19:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support for multiple RFCs on one page
That would seem to be a disadvantage of this system, because when the system was manual no such limitation existed. Was it also a limitation on the previous bot system? --PBS (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or a particular advantage, because it will discourage editors from making multiple, possible spurious, RfCs. RfCs can be submitted as a way of delaying the inevitable, or interupting the normal flow of a talk page such as preventing consensus decisions, or a way of implying that something which is 99% certain or settled is in fact uncertain and unsettled. Meowy 16:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree very much with PBS. I know for certain that the previous bot did allow cross-listing under multiple topics, which can be helpful when an issue spans topics. If the new bot does not support that, then that is a bug that needs to be corrected. The issue that Meowy raises is really not a matter of multiple listings, but of listing at all, and seems to me to be a separate issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The lack of support for multiple RFCs on one page is a bug, not a feature. I will try to fix it. I have an idea in mind. &mdash;harej ( EQUALITY! ) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot now supports up to three RFCs on the same page. &mdash;harej ( EQUALITY! ) 01:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The entry for on Requests for comment/History and geography contains the title of the first entry on the page Talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide and links to that section but the entry now contains the text from the second section Talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide. --PBS (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One of them didn't have a timestamp, and in order for a block of text to be considered the description, it has to end with a timestamp. I added a timestamp, so I think that should solve the problem. &mdash;harej 00:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That happened because one was placed under the old template and was still in place when the new template was introduced (which was used for the second one). Both seem to be working now :-) --PBS (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Template not picked up by bot ?
RfC templates added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat&diff=prev&oldid=293057844 appear not to have been picked up. As there are no other RfC entries for 29th May perhaps this is a problem with the Bot rather than the formatting of the Templates. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the RFC on the Osho ( Bhagwan shree Rajneesh ) movement.
This request has been open for 6weeks and no comments have been added for 2weeks, could I please ask for an evaluation and possible closure of this request.Here is a link to the request Talk:Rajneesh_movement Just looking at the page, the bot has removed the tag but as yet no comment has been given.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Requesting clarification
Hi there. I have a situation I've been trying to deal with involving an admin I feel has been abusive with his sysop privileges. However, according to the RFC rules, I can't file an RFC here until I have a second person to corroborate the issue, and at the moment it's just been between myself and the other user.

Is it permissible to ask an uninvolved admin to review the situation and, if he/she agrees that there was a problem, to have that admin join me in filing the RFC? Thanks. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello? Bueller? &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, I'm going to assume that this talk page is dead and completely unmonitored. If anyone ever does reply to my question, please leave me a note on my talk page, because I'm no longer watching this one. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded on the talk page. II  | (t - c) 17:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Broken listing needs fixing
Please could someone have a look at the Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex listing for Talk:Unexplained disappearances? I've tried to fix the listing myself but the bot has reverted me, and I don't want to make a bigger mess or appear to be trying to make some inappropriate change. Thanks. 58.8.10.170 (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC) - now fixed - - thanks. 58.8.10.170 (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User page Rfc
Is it normal to have an Rfc on a user page? A discussion was started at The Village Pump by Jarry1250, see here. This editor has now started an Rfc on his own user page: User:Jarry1250/RFC. Is this acceptable? Thanks for any guidance on this. -- Klein zach  03:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with it. &mdash;harej (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a response at long last! Is there any information on this anywhere? Any guideline or whatever? -- Klein zach  00:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * RFCs are an informal process. As much as some people try to claim that they need to be a certain way, they don't.  Use whatever you think will build and measure WP:consensus the best.  Gigs (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ConductDiscussion and related templates
I notice in the instructions on creating a new RFC/U, there's nothing indicating that you should inform the subject of the RFC/U. I'm assuming that it would be common courtesy to do so using the ConductDiscussion and/or related templates. Should we perhaps add that instruction to the article? Note that this is mentioned on the main WP:RFC page, but I think it should be re-iterated here, for those who may be jumping straight here. I notice that a number of recent submissions do not seem to have notified the user on their talk page. --RobinHood70 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Template Deficiencies
In the RfC2 template, it says, "Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below." The one problem with that is that there is no "Additional views" section.

It was probably intended to read "Outside views", but another user has brought up the point that with both RfC and RfC2, there's no section for "Inside views" - for someone who may have been involved in the dispute in some way, but does not wish to endorse either side.

Would there be objections to adding an "Additional views" or "Inside views" section to the templates that would essentially be a copy of the "Outside views" template, but not imply that the person is an outsider? Personally, I would suggest using the word "Additional views", just as a catch-all in case there's any other situation that the template hasn't considered and we're not thinking of right now.

Anybody else have any opinions on this? --RobinHood70 (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In a discussion on an actual RfC, someone brought up the point that in the RfC instructions, it says:
 * "Anyone, including those who wrote the original RfC, is allowed to post their own view, in a separate section with their name on it, such as ==View by == It can be helpful to indicate the viewpoint of the particular editor, such as "Outside view" "Inside view" "Semi-involved view" etc"


 * In light of this, I would suggest that either we create sections for these, to make it plain for the newbie to RfC/U's, or that we rename the "Outside Views" sections to simply "Views" and then add something like a "Viewpoint" entry to each point in that section. --RobinHood70 (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Who gets to vote?
Can anonymous IP addresses vote? Or only registered users? The latter makes sense to me but I didn't see anything in the policy, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * RfCs are strictly informal, so there's no reason an IP couldn't say something, as long as they can back up what they're saying based on their contribution history. Given that that's likely to be minimal (since most IPs get re-assigned regularly), chances are that won't be a whole lot. --RobinHood70 (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New format
So... who saw the new format for RFC listings, such as at Requests for comment/Policy? What are your thoughts? @harej 04:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Example
Hi, I tried using the RFC instructions for the first time the other day and when I did, it was suggested that I should use a different format from the one in the example. This is a problem, I think, and so it would be worth at least letting editors who are coming here know that there is more than one way to write an RfC. I put in an example that matches the format and it was removed for being redundant.

I think that having only the current example is inadequate for instructing people new to the process and would like to see the how-to-use portion of this article beefed up. Lot  49a talk 16:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it because I felt it was too specific of a situation for what should be a general instruction guide, but it would have a place on a more detailed page listing the various option one has when filing a request for comment. @harej 17:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What next ?
I have not seen any response on an RFC on this page so far. I also added a request for help on the talk page of the WP:Wikiproject Computing. What further efforts can I make to resolve an edit conflict. hAl (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't there used to be an off wiki tool to which added a new request to this page?
A person could enter text into several boxes, then the webpage would create a new RFC.

What happened to it, and what is the web address? Thanks Ikip (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it:
 * New! - Bypass these instructions and try the RFC posting tool.
 * Site: http://toolserver.org/~messedrocker/postingscript.php
 * Added 20:47, 24 January 2009 by Harej.
 * Removed 02:41, 21 May 2009 by Harej,
 * Talk page:
 * 09:29, 24 January 2009 Introduction, using the User:RFC posting script bot

See also User talk:RFC posting script

Which is no longer on the page. Ikip (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I stopped advertising it because it's outdated; it uses the old syntax. I have to update it to use the modern syntax &mdash; the one people have very little trouble with (kind of making the tool obsolete). Once I get to updating it, it will be much better than it was before. @harej 17:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, I look forward to the update! Ikip (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Posting script works once more!
Check it out! The RFC Posting Script is back in action! &mdash;harej (via posting script) 23:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of prior Rfc's
Is there a category or browsable list of old Rfc discussions? -- &oelig; &trade; 02:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone check something here?
As I was checking Requests for comment/Policies, I noticed that all the sections were wikilinked to other discussion pages except one. Is the non-linking of the one dealing with disambiguation pages supposed to be that way? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct
An RFC on RFC. How about that. Anyways, I find Requests for comment/User conduct to be redundant. There is nothing on the instructions on that page that cannot be expressed on WP:RFC itself, and the lists could be spun off into pages such as Requests for comment/Administrators just as we have Requests for comment/Style issues. (For the foreseeable future, these new pages would operate exactly how they operate now). Is there any reason why I should not proceed with this merge/split deal? @harej 06:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * hm: to me content/style-related RfCs are a very different kettle of fish than user-conduct RfCs. i'd be more in favour of making user-conduct RfCs a separate page where its protocols/procedures can be spelled out without complicating the page for content/style RfCs. Sssoul (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that much of the procedure for user RFCs is already documented on WP:RFC itself. @harej 07:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * what i'm saying is that i think having the two different procedures outlined on one page complicates things too much. user-conduct RfCs are different from content/style RfCs, and i'm more in favour of separating them more clearly than merging them. Sssoul (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think the two processes (user RFCs and article/policy/style RFCs) should secede from each other? @harej 07:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't approve of the proposed change either. The problems (if any) and redundancies have been minor and the format between the two has always been recognised as distinct. I neither see much (if any) improvement from this proposed change, nor do I see a need for it. To be frank, there are more important matters that need attention, such as actually helping resolve the disputes brought up in the RfCs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge 'em. We need to streamline.  This looks like one place to do so. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said. So let's see. There are arguments that we should streamline the process, even though the two types of RFC are distinct. I think merging the two pages wouldn't change that; it would just put it on one page. Not to mention the fact that the main RFC page already acknowledges the other process. @harej 07:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * could someone explain why "we need to streamline"? to me clarity should be the priority, and making it less harrowing for an ordinary user to file an RfC of whichever type. the instructions page is already daunting-looking. Sssoul (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Peregrine Fisher is referring to how we have a set of instructions on WP:RFC and then more instructions on the subpage. @harej 08:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If he was referring to that, it simply doesn't matter, because it was deliberately set out on both pages (rather than on one, or split between the two). Some people can confuse conduct with content, and hope to come to WP:RFC to clarify that understanding of how both types of RfC differ. Clarity takes priority. Trying to merge the systems would do nothing more than confuse both newbies and established contributors. Waste of time and effort here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "It simply doesn't matter"? Odd choice of phrasing. I can see some argument for clarifying content v conduct on the RFC page, but then that section (WP:RFC) should be written in an entirely different way, to emphasise the need to distinguish the two. Mixing it up with the RFC/U instructions is unhelpful, and linking back there from the top of RFC/U, whilst obviously intended to avoid duplication, is a big no-no interface-wise. Rd232 talk 15:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I don't follow your last sentence. But yes, it "should be written in an entirely different way to emphasise the need to distinguish between the two". If you, Harej, or anyone else has specific proposals on what to include in terms of words/wording (and how it would change the existing text on the RFC page), please do put them forward. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My proposal would be to de-merge them. I certainly find it quite unintuitive for the RFC/U instructions to be divided between a section on the general RFC page and an essay. I would (a) remove the user section from WP:RFC (move it here), and just have a hatnote there (b) make a full introductory page, with a substantial reworking of the clarity of the instructions, and the purpose of an RFC/U, and perhaps alternatives to it; taking some points from the essay. (c) move the actual listings to a separate page. (Perhaps also (d) - have a bot delete expired RFC/Us.)

That would make things clearer within the frame of the current process. At the same time, I don't think the current process is entirely up to scratch either. The need for two users to certify a dispute within 48 hours is fairly stringent, to a degree that impedes the purpose of the process: there just is too much of a disconnect between there being a dispute Out There On Wikipedia Somewhere and a fully-formed RFC/U materialising. There needs to be a pre-drafting stage, where interested users can publicly frame the topic they wish to comment on. (The alternative is private communication to arrange things, which we surely don't wish to encourage.) Alternatively, the 48 hr limit could be extended (1 week would match AFD, PROD - where the argument is it helps weekend editors to have a 1week timeframe), and the RFC/U process restructured so that the overview of the dispute is framed collaboratively (not entirely sure that would work, but it might be interesting), with individual views given if needed in addition to the collaboratively developed one. Now obviously the 48hr limit is there to prevent frivolous RFCs, but given the nature of an RFC/U (it's not a trial, there are no involuntary sanctions that can emerge from it), and there's no requirement for the subject of the RFC/U to spend their time responding, maybe the limit needn't be that low. That might lead to more RFC/Us, but if pursued in the appropriate spirit ("request for comments, to the entire world, not a court hearing") maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing. (And if it was, we could change the process again.) Rd232 talk 12:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: if there's a single thing that needs clarifying in the instructions, it's this: "evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute". There is no guidance on how "same dispute" may be defined, eg how related overlapping issues are to be handled; or what it means to "try and fail to resolve". (Does it require user talk posts, for instance?). This may be hard to clarify in the abstract, so examples may be the way to go. Rd232 talk 12:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute" was deliberately worded that way to account for a broad number of circumstances. Users who have concerns about what is acceptable should refer to the archives (per the instructions) to see how RfCs have been run in the recent past - good examples can be found there as they are particular circumstances for particular cases, which can vary by even a couple of minor factors. Providing an exhaustive list of hypothetical examples is simply not practical. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, you think the current guidance is good enough? A link to the archive Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive illuminating? If I (an admin since 2005) find that confusing, how do you think the average Wikipedian feels? I didn't say it would be easy to fix, but it must be possible to do better. Rd232 talk 15:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Many times, people have wondered whether we should have administrators who have very limited or no experience in dispute resolution, but I digress. Shortcuts in this area lead to superficial understandings; the current guidance is good enough in order to develop a satisfactory understanding of the system (this includes how the rules are enforced, such as when your RfC was deleted). I've been here since the end of 2006, yet by your own confession, our understandings of the system vary very significantly - do you really want me to answer your question? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a spectacularly unhelpful answer. In this case, my lack of familiarity with this particular underused process is actually an asset: I see it much more like the average Wikipedian than you, who apparently had a substantial hand in making it as it is, or at least knows it well. And am I really to infer that you think the status quo is unimprovable? Or are you just concerned that any changes might make it worse, and therefore any discussion thereof should be shut down just in case? Rd232 talk 15:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I agree to an extent: it would partially be an asset, but it would, in my opinion, also partially be a liability. That is why groups of people that tend to truly strive to improve systems consist of people who are familiar with it, as well as people who are unfamiliar. But when an RfC is flawed in the way it is written and structured to begin with, there is not much hope in achieving a useful outcome. This is why it is important to let things stay broad rather than narrow them down prematurely. As for your inference, it would be incorrect, and no, I don't believe any change would make it worse. Rather, my view is that many of the changes proposed here are likely to make it worse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need to kill the existing language. Proof of two users whatever (sorry, I am very tired) are still words to go by. A case study on some excellent examples would serve well as a supplementary page. @harej 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems with RFC/U
My problem is that RFC/U's are often pointless unless the subject is willing to take criticism onboard (and then they operate as a quasi-formal editor review). Not only that but the framework, borrowed from RFC, is not conducive to resolving user conduct issues. Right now, in order to have an RFC/U, I have to have two editors certify that some specific dispute has cropped up and remains extant with a particular editor. Which means if I have an editor who is just a jerk to other people or causes some other issues, I can't necessarily open an RFC/U because there may not be a current dispute. And if I have an editor who is locked in a current dispute with another editor, an RFC/U is not the best option--mediation or 3O may be preferred because the crux of individual disputes isn't necessarily general behavior. Clearly, the two editor certification process stops RFC/U's from becoming scream therapy for aggrieved editors--we don't want RFC's to be a place where various detractors can collect to just bitch about an editor. But then RFC/U ends up operating in a very narrow nether world: where there is a specific dispute, but not over content and not important enough that some more immediate or final outcome is needed, and the dispute resolves around conduct, but will be resolved with the participation of the 'defendant' (for lack of a better word). How many disputes exist like that? How many editors can you think of, right off the top of your head, that coul be the subject of an RFC/U if the classification were not so strict? What steps do we need to take in order to make RFC/U's relevant to editor conduct, binding and fair? Protonk (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In my opinion, Requests for Conduct will not be useful until they are binding. Is their no chance we could use it as a fixed and dedicated place to establish community consensus on the behaviour of the subject? Lets say there are 40 participants, and 35 feel that User X is detrimental to a particular topic area. 30 of those agree that a topic ban is the way forward. Is there any way we could say "consensus is that User:X is detrimental to this area, consensus is that a topic ban is the way to go, BAM. Topic banned."? RfC/U fails specifically because subjects are rarely willing to take the criticism, or voluntarily sanction themselves. RfC is nothing more than an ANI thread without the chance of a binding result. Ironholds (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So why don't we ditch RFC/U? AN/I seems to encourage a more natural flow of conversation than the bureaucracy-steeped RFC. Plus stuff actually happens at AN/I. @harej 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * AN/I is naturally a dramapit filled with venom, and it's impossible to understand something unless you jump in right at the beginning; too much builds up. To an extent I think the RfC model ("voting" on statements, with discussion happening on the talkpage) is actually better. Liquidthreads may change it, but I can't see AN/I being useful as a place to send things that a) actually need to be resolved and b) are particularly complex. It just doesn't work. Ironholds (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's take the best of both worlds. We can keep around RFC/U, but add a new section for community-binding actions, the same way actionable bans can be decided on at the administrators noticeboard. @harej 23:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be excellent. Something like "if 75% of commenting users (which must be more than say, 20) believe that User:X's actions are a problem, this section can be opened". I'm not sure how wildly approved that'd be, and this certainly isn't the place to arbitrarily approve it. Any other comments on this idea? Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the major problem is that outcomes are not binding. If conclusions from an RFC point in a particular direction, we can say more explicitly that this can be a recommendation for sanction, if no voluntary action can be agreed. But such a recommendation for sanction should then be taken forward at ANI, with the RFC comments as major background to that. Basically, if we make RFCs possibly-binding, we massively raise the drama level and go very far from their intended purpose. Rd232 talk 14:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * RfC/Us are nothing more than a "last chance" type remedy, prior to serious action via sanctions being considered for the subject. It is therefore important that enough reasonable attempts have been made by more than one user to resolve the particular dispute or conduct issues raised. RfC/Us are not binding; they are merely a focal point where the community can express its views and try to persuade a user to change their approach if its disruptive, whether it's the subject or the filing party. Notably, it's similar to mediation in that it requires editors to consent in the sense that it's not compulsory to respond - however, unlike mediation, editors may continue to run the RfC/U in case the subject does not wish to respond directly, but later takes a look and starts reforming his/her approach. Generally, disputes that go directly to arbitration (without RfC/U) theoretically should result in less severe sanctions being handed out in lieu of the fact that time was not given to reform conduct based on formal community feedback - that's why it's better to let arbitration be final by going via RfC, rather than go back to arbitration again and again when those resources could be used elsewhere. I could probably write more and more pages on this, and all of it would need editing (for clarification and consistency), but of the limited time we spend on-wiki, I think there are other things that are more of a priority than this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's how I see it too, but we don't need pages and pages of instructions, we need short, sweet, and clear. And that takes more time and effort than writing long instructions. (As Mark Twain once said, I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one.) Rd232 talk 15:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is an issue with making instructions more concise, on the condition they don't reduce the emphasis of points that have been emphasized - putting it into practice is a tad bit more difficult, and has at times, proved to be a waste of time when others lose interest. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There are three problems that I see with RFC/U:
 * 1) Unless users are willing to spend lots of time compiling evidence against a certain user, people aren't going to want to participate.
 * 2) With more and more cases going straight to ArbCom, the increased willingness of ArbCom to accept such cases, and the inability of RFC/U to provide resolution and closure to user conduct issues, then why bother with RFC/U if it's that ineffective on doing anything except raising everyone's blood pressure?
 * 3) With said inability to provide any resolution and closure to user conduct issues, RFC/U becomes nothing more than a kangaroo court, further condemning those put on the spot than searching for anything constructive.

I don't think too many people are going to miss RFC/U if it gets nixed. It really doesn't accomplish anything nor provide any good results. MuZemike 20:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * i concur. as i've noted, i've been told i "should" launch an RfC/U with regard to another editor's obstinately problematic behaviour. the reason i'm being nudged to do it is that none of the other editors observing the problematic behaviour feels like putting in the time and effort that the process demands - and i don't either: it's not at all clear why anyone "should" go this overly-demanding route instead of going straight to ANI. if the RfC/U process has been made deliberately daunting in order to reduce frivolous abuse of it, simply jettisoning it would be a more efficient way to achieve that; but if it's supposed to exist, the "forum" being discussed below, with experienced editors/admins doing "triage" and assisting with the drafting stages, sounds like it would help a lot. Sssoul (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible solutions
Some possible solutions, not necessarily mutually exclusive.
 * A. Just clarify the procedure and improve the instructions.
 * B. Demerge from RFC (may help with clarifying process)
 * C. Clearly state that binding sanctions may be recommended by users (perhaps under certain conditions), with recommendations to go to ANI for discussion
 * D. Increase the certification time from the current 48 hours
 * E. Provide a process for collaboratively drafting RFCs, to make it more likely that RFCs that materialise are framed in a way that addresses the key issues
 * F. As part of the drafting process (E) incorporate clear directions on how to try again to resolve the issue with the user in question before the RFC is posted.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Rd232 talk 14:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thoughts: this entire RfC is a farce, and the lot of these solutions are a waste of time. Suggestions: look at how previous disputes have been handled, and what prior attempts were made to resolve the dispute prior to starting an RfC/U next time - it is not the community's problem you failed to satisfy the criteria that was laid out in the instructions, and/or failed to check through the archives to see how previous recent RfC/Us have been run. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, you think the current guidance is good enough? A link to the archive Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive illuminating? If I (an admin since 2005) find that confusing, how do you think the average Wikipedian feels? I didn't say it would be easy to fix, but it must be possible to do better. And frankly I don't like your needlessly confrontational tone. If you don't want to help improve this process, no-one's forcing you. Rd232 talk 15:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the first part of your copied comment above already. I'm sure my thoughts were unambiguously clear, but I'll restate my opinion for your benefit: I posted here because generally, enacting your proposals here does the opposite of help - they waste time, even if it is unintentionally. Case in point: you suggest that I may not want to help improve the process, and that I may be commenting because of some belief that I am being forced to (needlessly based on a bad assumption) - less time would be wasted if you made a greater effort to stop making bad assumptions and realise everyone who comments here wants to improve the process (as everyone already knows they are not forced to comment anywhere). Improving the process may include educating users like yourself on what to expect so that you change your own approach when you start an RfC/U in the future - that's what I did in the second part of my reply. The merits of what I said should've been considered fully and properly by you - it was not wise to be distracted by what you imagine to be my tone, as you can end up with very wrong conclusions like you did here. Something similar seemed to also happen at the recent WQA on ChildOfMidnight. In the future, prior to responding, please reflect more on the merits of what is said - particularly in this case, I only gave you what you asked for: feedback. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not making bad assumptions, but I increasingly detect that you are - that you think I'm motivated by the recent failure of an RFC/U I tried to launch. Which is not the case - that attempt, on reflection (I have an interest in policy processes, eg I launched WP:PROJPOL), revealed some problems with the process, and when I saw someone else had launched an RFC, I commented, and made some proposals. Proposals which you've largely declined to address in detail. (The one point you did address, you haven't responded to my reply.) Rd232 talk 19:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I merely think many of your suggestions are motivated by your recent RfC/U attempt that failed; there's nothing too wrong with that, but those suggestions may not be helpful. Spoonfeeding an administrator of 2005 on how to discuss things properly, particularly at this venue, was not something I want to do, but anyway: I've addressed the proposals for what their worth; if you want to know something more particular, you can ask or be more specific, and perhaps then I can actually assist in making the feedback more meaningful to you. But seeing you didn't get the underlying message on my last reply, I guess I don't have a choice but to be plain this time: to ask for feedback, receive feedback from an established user, and then respond with: "if you don't want to help improve this process, no-one's forcing you" is excessively unhelpful and disrespectful. If you don't want it or don't want to know, you certainly should not be asking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. If you think my comment "if you don't want to help improve this process, no-one's forcing you" is "excessively unhelpful and disrespectful", what do you think of this as a response to thoughts on a number of possible ways to improve the RFC/U process: "this entire RfC is a farce, and the lot of these solutions are a waste of time. Suggestions: look at how previous disputes have been handled, and what prior attempts were made to resolve the dispute prior to starting an RfC/U next time - it is not the community's problem you failed to satisfy the criteria that was laid out in the instructions, and/or failed to check through the archives to see how previous recent RfC/Us have been run." Now that is "excessively unhelpful and disrespectful". As for your claim to have given me "feedback" - no you have not given me feedback on my proposals. You have given negativity and insinuation and distraction and disrespect, without addressing my suggestions at all (except the one which you replied to, and have ignored my response). Frankly you have added a lot of words to this thread, and said extremely little that is helpful. Feel free to change that. Rd232 talk 07:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rd232, when an administrator of 2005 (you) fails to understand basic nuances - that is, he cannot distinguish between attacking content and gross assumptions of bad faith, the standard expected of administrators is clearly declining. That's not nice to see. Here, you may have meant for your suggestions to help, and frankly, nobody's doubted that you wanted to. However, the reality is, enacting your suggestions would achieve nothing more than waste time, and that does not help the process. That's my opinion and that's perfectly legitimate feedback; you're entitled to disagree, and make an effort to clarify or reconcile our points of view if you wish (which I would've also preferred), but that's it. You are not entitled to make disrespectful, unhelpful suggestions that I don't want to improve the process - they add no value to this thread, and frankly, you are exercising very poor judgement in doing so. The worst part is, you make these suggestions merely because I think your way about improving the situation (and the way this RfC was worded/structured) is ludicrous and unhelpful (to put it in another way, a waste of time).
 * As for the remainder of my suggestions, they went towards addressing your own flawed approach to the RfC/U you filed recently; your chose to use a flawed approach but that doesn't make it the community's problem by default - you should make a greater effort to try to change your approach to them in the future. As I suggested, if you actually made a greater effort to satisfy basic certification requirements, and went through the archives to see how a recent RfC/U was run, a bulk of the problem would already be resolved, and the outcome would certainly be different. If you actually spent time addressing all this, rather than repeatedly making circular arguments, we'd be getting somewhere rather than wasting even more time. I don't see which response I've "ignored" - could you give me the timestamp of that comment? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This exchange is getting increasingly pointless and repetitive. To repeat the key point: I made no assumptions of bad faith, I merely gave you an "out" if you wished to devote your efforts elsewhere rather than to improving the prcess, a point you made yourself; but you keep referring to my recent failed RFC/U, which the more often you raise it the more it seems a failure of WP:AGF. Anyway since you ask, the point you didn't respond to was made near the top of this thread, 15.33 on 10 Sep. Rd232 talk 09:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you realise everyone who comments here wants to improve the process (as everyone already knows they are not forced to comment anywhere), we'd have more time for useful points. When you yourself brought up that failed attempt in your quote (07:56), is it wise to be accusing me of bad faith assumptions? Your comment at 15:33 10 Sept was in reply to a comment I made last month - didn't notice it, but I'll take a look. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) for the record, i was advised that i should launch an RfC/U as a next step in a situation i was involved in, but the unclear instructions and requirements, combined with the lack of any binding outcomes, make the process seem like way more trouble than it's worth. so some of the possible improvements listed above sound quite promising. clearer instructions, a longer "certification period" and guidance at the drafting stages would all help a lot. i also like the concept that RfC/Us could include at least some prospect of binding outcomes, but i don't really see how that could be enacted, other than just directing people straight to AN/I. Sssoul (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the dispute needs binding outcomes, that's what ANI and arbitration exist for - if nobody is willing to enact any binding outcomes there, or the behavioral problems need to be made clear, then that's what RfC/U exists for. It doesn't matter what dispute resolution system you use, whether it's on-wiki, off-wiki, or worldwide - parties will always be encouraged to come to a resolution themselves at the earliest stages possible; where parties can't or won't, it would be reasonable for one to expect that there will be an unfortunately unavoidable cost for both sides (some greater than others). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the process was easier and clearer, the lack of binding outcomes would be less of a problem. Similarly, if it was said that binding outcomes could be discussed/proposed (but voluntary outcomes are preferable), but that any such binding outcome recommendations would have to be referred to ANI, it would make the process seem more worth the effort. Rd232 talk 07:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your intent here is to change one of the fundamental principles of RfC/Us that the outcomes are voluntary, voluntary and voluntary. They are not designed for making binding outcomes. RfC/Us are merely a means to (1) highlight conduct problems (generally, more complex ones) and (2) to try to make the user change their approach through community feedback without sanctions. If it's not worth the effort, and you want binding outcomes (or a combination of binding and voluntary outcomes), then you are not in the correct venue - ANI or arbitration exists for that purpose, so please use it accordingly. I thought that was a simple concept to understand. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My intent here is nothing of the sort, and I fail to see how if you'd actually been reading my comments in this thread you could think so. What I'm saying is that allowing RFCs to discuss binding sanctions and to have a recommendation for a binding outcome is an option worth discussing. As I've said repeatedly, any such recommendation would have to go forward to ANI for further discussion. That is very different than what was proposed somewhere above, and which I very clearly rejected, of allowing binding outcomes from an RFC. Allowing binding sanctions as an outcome of an RFC is as contrary to the notion of a "request for comment" as is forbidding those comments from concluding that a sanction is necessary (and should therefore be raised where sanctions can be imposed.) Rd232 talk 09:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think we're talking past each other in that case. I'm not sure what is there to "discuss" about sanctions that isn't already discussed in RfC/Us - some people make views that basically say "I think that if filing party and subject continue, they will be topic banned from area X", or "User Y should be page banned to allow the content issues to be resolved" and people do endorse those summaries. Do you want this be explicitly stated in the instructions or....? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this is one of the things that needs clarifying. The only guidance on outcomes at the moment is in the essay, which says only voluntary outcomes are possible. RFC/How to present a case. That's fine as far as it goes, but whilst enormously encouraging voluntary outcomes, some discussion of how recommendations on binding outcomes are viable and how to handle them would seem helpful. NB At this point I'm less interested in the "binding" issue than in the drafting/clarity issue. Rd232 talk 10:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've understood what you're trying to say, but I think part of it is you want guidance on how outcomes vary...? Would you mind opening a user subpage and perhaps roughly drafting something that resembles what you'd like to see, based on your understanding of RfC/U so far? I don't mind working on the details, accuracy, etc. later, but right now, I'm having trouble seeing the sort of guidance you're wanting with respect to outcomes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * encouraging parties to come to a resolution sounds like a good reason to make the RfC/U process less daunting. again: clearer instructions, a longer "certification period" and guidance at the drafting stages would all help. Sssoul (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * RfC/U is the last step prior to a much more daunting process called arbitration, or dramatic process called ANI - the lack of binding outcomes simply exists to avoid the greater costs incurred at the other 2 venues. Checking how previous RfC/Us were run should generally make instructions clearer and provide guidance on drafting, but if there's something particular that is not being made clear, then perhaps we should look into it. Unfortunately, unlike arbitration and ANI, abusing the RfC/U system is much easier as there are no binding outcomes, which is why the certification period is exactly how it looks. Note how ANI and arbitration don't require certification as such as cases can be dismissed much easier there, and abuse is treated accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What "abuse" can occur when no binding outcomes are possible? And is a relatively short certification period the best way to deal with such abuse? Rd232 talk 09:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Frivolous RfCs, RfCs designed to attack a contributor where no true dispute exists, etc. etc. And absolutely - the short certification period makes it easier to deal with these sorts of RfCs and prevent abuse as soon as possible, without deleting too many views (and let's face it, writing out a view takes time). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I get that in general. But I think such RFCs are partly a failure of the process, and the certification period addresses the symptoms, not the problem. An improvement of the drafting stage of the RFC would help; something that would clarify the initial points of view on a dispute, and then out of that various things may arise, including a full RFC in some cases. The certification period might be changed if that works really well (probably not that important if it works), but the priority for me is to address the gap between Problem Out There (What To Do) and certified RFC. That gap is partly a drafting/preparation gap, but more than that it's a dispute resolution gap. We have to be able to do better than have people come here thinking about RFC (for the sort of problems not easily addressable elsewhere), and then going away with no good alternatives. At the moment the instructions list some places to go, but in too many cases referred here, they're not good fits. Rd232 talk 09:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. What I have in mind, now I think about it more concretely, might be basically as simple as Requests for comment/User conduct/Forum, with directions on whether it's the right place to be, instructions on how to draft an RFC, and what needs to be done before listing for certification. And I'm thinking there might be a collaboratively developed draft overview of the dispute, which once it's agreed, there has to be another attempt by at least two users to discuss the draft with the user in question, on their user talk page. If that doesn't lead to a resolution, then the ingredients should be in place for a non-frivolous reasonably-well-drafted RFC which is going to be certified. Having a forum like that would of course also give a place for experienced users to monitor - for potentially frivolous RFCs, to help draft them, to try and avoid the need for one, for behaviour that needs immediate action, etc. How does that sound? Rd232 talk 10:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to review this in a couple of weeks to be sure (and as I may need to clarify a few things about your idea), and we may need to find a better title than "forum". But here's my preliminary view: the idea of having a forum to clarify issues, guide users on drafting, and so on, (without otherwise changing the certification requirements) is excellent - in contrast to my view for the earlier suggestions, this is VERY helpful. It seems we are making progress; a step in the right direction finally. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC) modified slightly. 06:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad you think so :) It is kind of what I had in the back of my mind all along, but I finally made the step to foreground it. Concrete suggestions are often better. Rd232 talk 11:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Another problem and solution for RFC/U
The way I see it, RFC/U is useless unless the user involved is willing to accept that there may be an issue, and make an attempt to implement one of the solutions. Otherwise, it just becomes a shouting match which forces the subject to be on the defensive against every user they have ever pissed off. We have all seen this happen numerous times, and its never pretty. So, instead of making solutions there binding, why not just require that the subject consents to an RFC about him- or herself? That way, it is different from ANI, and weeds out the RFCs that are unlikely to have a positive outcome. Its like an intervention, of sorts. The only way it works is if the user is willing to change, so maybe that should be a prerequisite. Anyway, that's just my $0.02 The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a great idea if it is made a part of the certification requirement. If the user himself does not assent after 48 hours, it can be deleted. This could in turn be used against the user at ArbCom. @harej 20:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly my thought; if the user doesn't agree with itthen it is evidence that prior dispute resolution has been attempted. Though RFC (declined) --> AN or ANI (no consensus or user violates that consensus) --> arbcom would make more sense to me, so as not to flood RFAR with frivolous requests by having it be the immediate next step. My experience is that if the user doesn't agree that there is a problem, then chances are very slim that he will accept voluntary sanctions at the conclusion of an RFC/U. In fact, i'm surprised this change hasn't been discussed before (or maybe it has and I just didn't see it). Seems like a simple solution to our problem. The Wordsmith (formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a massive step in the WRONG direction by making RfC/U more useless. On the content disputes, two mechanisms exist: article RfC and mediation. Mediation is completely voluntary and requires consent by all parties; article RfC can be filed by anyone, but they cannot be declined as such by other parties. Notably though, if an editor refuses to participate in mediation, it is unlikely to count against them as there are many legitimate reasons they can decline to participate in mediation - they are not required to spell those reasons out either. If they don't heed an article RfC however, then it is VERY LIKELY to count against them as that's plainly disruptive. The only outcome that should be desired by an user who files an RfC/U is that the user reforms their conduct, either at the express wish of the community, or otherwise - the outcome should not be narrowed down to something so rigid that the subject is expected to grovel, or relies on them expressly agreeing to say/do anything like in mediation. So it is not helpful to convert RfC/U into a conduct-mediation. That said, this does not mean a separate conduct mediation step should not be considered; merely that it should not replace the current RfC system. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving uncertified RfC
Hi can any user archive an uncertified RfC or must it get done by an admin the RfC here has passsed the 48 hour period and only one user has showed that they tried to resolve it and not the required two thanks. BigDunc 10:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought uncertified RFCs were deleted? @harej 12:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This one I mentioned seems to still be live do I ask for speedy deletion? And if so which criteria as I don't think it fits any. BigDunc  14:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response - thought the question was answered: just put the deletion reason as uncertified and it should be deleted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Qualifications for commenter
I was wondering what qualifications a commenter has? I requested a comment in a routine case of article censorship - a editor had continued to censor out material that his countries administration did not like. The person answering the Rfc said that references could not be used from a country with whom the US has less than perfect relations. The US maintains an embassy to this country. The two countries are not at war.

When I looked at the Rfc-ers discussion page, it was a riot of complaints! Not exactly the placid, detached history/geography "expert" that I had hoped for! We will have to go to mediation, now. So he has just made our job that much harder, and the censor, who has been at work on all articles relating to that country for years, will have that much more time to continue his work. Student7 (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I haven't looked at your particular case, generally, a commenter at an RfC does not need any qualifications. It's usually just another editor who gives their perspective on the content issue(s) in question. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed there are no qualifications. Every editors comments are equal in weight to every other editor even Administrators. The only time an Administrators comments carry more weight is when they are formally invited to play the role of an Administrator such as in an arbitration, or sock puppet situation. But when they are editing and discussing articles they are equal to everyone else. Wiki is a very egalitarian environment.-- — Kbob •  Talk  • 00:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia is officially egalitarian. Which means it does not technically matter who is making the comment, but what the comment is. Of course, some people will tend to take the words of certain people more seriously than others; that's just human nature. Officially, we're all on equal ground. @harej 01:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Where do I go with user RfC case?
Hi. I brought a wikiquette alert yesterday against a user and it ended up causing a row about the purpose of the Wikiquette alert page itself. The case has been marked as closed, not suitable for the page. And there was a suggestion that I should take out a user RfC. But although I did post on the user's talk page before I posted the wikiquette alert, and although the user has been dismissive of various people apart from myself (respondents to the WP:RSN, respondents to the wikiquette alert), I am still the only person posting on this (on the civility question rather than the substantive issue) to the user talk page. I don't want to go shopping around to get others to post there. I don't want to drop it either, because IMO someone needs to be told firmly what is an inappropriate way to relate to other users. Could someone have a look at the alert page and advise me where to go from here? It would be much appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, itsmejudith. After review of the alert it was closed appropriately becuase the other inflicting party did not take the matter seriously and violated the overview policy of WP:WQA by requesting a block; in which WQA can not. After the discussion on your talk page I suggest you bring it to the attention of WP:ANI. The issue is uncivil and is seeming to have an authoritive tone over the matter, which is inapproriate. Please post the issue on the WP:ANI for further review. Thanks. -- A3RO (mailbox)  23:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Did I use the RfC correctly?
I'm terribly sorry for asking but recently I made an attempt to intervene in the talk page for the article Diablada because I noticed regular disputes between the main contributors and IPs I tried to ask to leave aside national or political thoughts there because it was an article about a dance. I had no intention to edit it right now to avoid an edition war, but I just wanted to prevent it to turn into a bigger dispute. But I think I failed because a particular user MarshalN20 reacted in a bad way against me, I felt it was because of my nationality I felt discriminated and insulted by his way of treating me and mocking about my comments which had a good intention but I got misinterpreted. I also noticed he had a pattern which led me to think he may be using a sock puppet, so after noticing that he wouldn't be willing to work with others, and less with people from Bolivia, and the situation was leading to disruptive editing of the article using only one point of view, is that I decided to present a RfC here Requests for comment/MarshalN20 but maybe I rushed because I'm not so sure if this is the correct mean to ask for help with editors that have a policy breaking conduct especially if not many people were involved there at the moment just one impartial user, him, his suspected sock puppet and some IPs, that probably don't know very well about Wikipedia's policy yet I still think this user is breaking the rules, and worst now that I've presented the RfC the user attacked me accusing me of being one of the vandalizing IPs (which of course I'm not and if necessary I'd love to prove that) I feel harassed and now I think that my possibilities to work with the article itself are now ruined and maybe it'll threaten my whole participation in Wikipedia because I feel stalked by him. I'm not so sure if I proceeded correctly to seek help and if not what should I do now?--Erebedhel (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputed early close
If someone wouldn't mind taking a look at this (close discussion begins slightly above the 3rd break). The RfC was shut down a little over a week in by a handful of FLC regulars who were "tired of this particular debate". An ANI was started here under the pretense that the debate might soon spiral out of control and the uninvolved admin skipped over the fact that clarification of the disputed clause (as opposed to its outright removal) and community consensus were also being discussed. I'm not comfortable seeing an opposing side of a debate shut it down when it defaults to their position but, mostly, if the regulars can't resolve an issue over a course of several years, I can't understand why they'd limit community input to less than ten days. Worse case scenario, someone might have a good idea. I suspect several of them are unfamiliar with the RfC process. Even I missed the fact that they generally last 30 days. A second opinion would be appreciated. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Slight changes to categorization
The following changes will be made to the RFC categories:


 * Art, architecture, literature and media → Art, architecture, literature, and media
 * To keep consistent with all the other categories that use the serial comma
 * Politics → Politics, government, and law
 * To broaden the scope
 * Society, sports, law, and sex → Society, sports, and culture
 * To broaden the scope ("sex" being a part of "culture") while removing the law aspect (covered by the above category).
 * Wikipedia style, referencing, and layout → Wikipedia style and naming
 * A simpler name, considering that I have not seen many RFCs in that category that have to do with "referencing" or "layout". Also allows for page-name RFCs (that are too complex/broad for the scope of WP:RM).
 * Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals → Wikipedia policies and guidelines
 * Proposals will be split off into a new category in order to reduce the bloat on Requests for comment/Policies.
 * New category: Wikipedia proposals
 * See above

Any objections? Any better ideas? Any new ideas? @harej 21:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now implemented this. @harej 03:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

incoherent sentence
In the section on Example Use of RFC tag, this sentence has mangled syntax. I can't understand what it's saying:

If you are an involved editor and you suspect that your words may be construed as non-neutral by the other parties, it may be prudent to set up the request such that you request for a neutral statement to be made then your own view is presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacrito (talk • contribs) 03:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrasing does look a bit awkward. Here is what that sentence is supposed to refer to. Say you want to start an RFC for an article because you have editorial concerns. The RFC process requires that the summary used to describe the dispute is written in such a way that it does not advocate for any side of what is being debated. However, if you're invested enough in the topic that you're incapable of writing up an objective summary, it would be a good idea to request comment while asking that someone writes an objective summary for you. @harej 14:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explication. The idea I get, the expression is still befuddling to me. I think my problem with the sentence is that I was expecting the second instance of the word "request" to be a noun when it's actually a verb... ?? I don't know. Would this be an oversimplification?

"... it may be prudent to first ask for a summary by a neutral party, and then present your own view."
 * (I'm still probably misinterpreting the sentence -- for example the passive voice "your own view is presented" is adding to my confusion)Bacrito (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this rephrasing: "If you feel as though you cannot describe the dispute neutrally, ask someone else to write it for you." Removes a lot of the conditionals and excessive wording. @harej 05:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * yep, that would be a major improvement, harej - thanks. Sssoul (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Revamp
I've created a new version of Requests for comment/User conduct, drafted here: Requests for comment/User conduct/new. It encompasses a separate guidance page for people wanting to create RFC/Us (Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance), for everyone else (Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2 - needs improving), a place to discuss RFCs under development (Requests for comment/User conduct/Forum) and a place for userspace drafts of RFCs (Category:Userspace RFC drafts). So, erm, what do people think? It's not quite finished, but there's no point polishing it to death if it's going to be met with just yawns and/or fists. Rd232 talk 14:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I should perhaps say up front that if people hate the Forum and/or Userspace Drafts ideas, I can live with dropping those. The main thing is to be a lot clearer and more helpful, and this structure (a) achieves a lot of that and (b) makes future improvement more likely. Rd232 talk 14:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks Rd232 - i had a look at it and think it's well worth pursuing. to me the idea of a functioning "forum" where people can get reliable assistance drafting an RfC is the most promising-sounding part, so please do pursue that. Sssoul (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Along with the 'forum idea' (which IIRC, was the only idea I was ready to give a ringing endorsement to in the previous RfC on RFC/Us), this is another good idea. It is in need of improvement (definitely), though I am optimistic that we can attack that aspect together over the next 3 weeks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. (Why 3 weeks?) Re this edit, I was trying to keep that page as simple as possible, and envisaged adding a note at the top of the RFC template, with a link to Guidance / Guidance 2, so that instructions appear exactly where they're needed. I think that front page could be basically just the list of RFCs and instructions for maintaining the list. (Plus maybe a clearer, more prominent injunction not to create RFCs without reading the Guidance.) One reason for that approach is that if we start giving some basic instructions there, people are less likely to feel they need to read the full instructions. Rd232 talk 13:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying re the edit, and I've changed it accordingly (so that the bare essentials, which are key to the RfC/U system functioning, are not lost either); let me know what you think. I also think the guidance could be personalized a bit more (your "subject" section is a good example of what I mean on this point); the rules section should stay as is however, and so I've fiddled with it a bit. (By the way, I say 3 weeks to account for periods of inactivity, but more importantly, to spend enough time reflecting on changes and making sure each part is right, as and when we put it "on air" in the post-improvement stages). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Rd232 talk 14:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it's been on WP:CENT since 9 October, and was mentioned in the latest Signpost (12 October), and no new input! I think I'll post on WP:AN before doing so, but unless specific objections appear, let's just get on with it. Rd232 talk 09:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect it would be for the obvious reason: this is not (and never will be) an urgent matter, nor is there any actual need to enact this prior to the issues in the drafts being fixed, including, but not limited to, what I raised below. Again, I will have no issues putting it live after the time specified in my prior comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Define urgent. Every day that the better version isn't live, disputes may be festering. Who knows? More to the point, I'm not clear what, if anything, remains to be done. I'm confused by "the issues in the drafts being fixed, including, but not limited to, what I raised below." OK, I missed your renaming proposal (because of beeblebrox's offtopic comment), but what else do you have in mind? And given the lack of interest despite heavy exposure, we're basically waiting for your input; and major structural things apart, further tweaking beyond what's already been done can be done after putting it live, in particular in response to "how things go". Anyway in answer to the question I missed, I think "forum" suits the purpose better, and that purpose is noticeably different than the type of thing the word "noticeboard" is usually used for on Wikipedia. That's why I chose "forum". But at the end of the day I don't think it matters very much what it's called, so if you'd rather use the standard term, fine. Rd232 talk 07:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Disputes may be festering"? I think you need a dose of reality: many people who are put-off by the current RfC/U system are still going to be put off even after this is made live - for far longer than a period of 3 weeks from when I specified earlier. And I disagree - the community's shortcut to WP:NOTFORUM is sufficient, in my opinion, to find a problem with calling it "a forum"; it's a time-bomb of drama waiting to go off. I don't see any good in killing off this bit of discussion (especially if it is because you're unhappy that your proposal isn't being enacted at the click of your fingers - your input may be appreciated, but nobody is forcing you to participate in the revamp process). In any case, if noticeboard is also not a good idea (which I can appreciate), I am thinking an alternative would be to call it a help desk, if you care to offer your thoughts on that. I also think many of the noticeable flaws in the drafting need to be fixed before-hand (I'm not spending too much time on the minor issues, which still exist, when they can be fixed after enacting this). I am hoping that the transition between both systems should be smooth for the many contributors who more familiar with the current RfC/U system since it was enacted, while newcomers will also appreciate the new system you've proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, but the sooner RFC/U is better (which this will achieve), the better. I'd be happier waiting if you were clearer about what issues you see that require delay, apart from the naming. And no, "help desk" is at least as bad as "forum", because it clashes with WP:Help desk, whilst we don't have a "forum" currently. Maybe something slightly awkward-but-clear like "RFC/U Questions" is least worst. Rd232 talk 10:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * RfC/U Question seems a bit awkward; how about RfC/U Assistance? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, go for it. Rd232 talk 09:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should move it from RfC/U forum to RfC/U noticeboard. Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is being addressed above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And now revamped - couple of days earlier than the 3 weeks noted. The last 2 sections in the Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Creation page need to be fixed by someone - that is, we need a RfC/U generator for those sections. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, and also created an editnotice (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/USERNAME) for those forgetting to change the details in the edit field. Many thanks for your good work here; I confess I got bored of waiting and lost interest a bit. If you think it's nearly ready to go now, I'll have another look. Rd232 talk 17:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem; and of course thank you for bringing the idea to the table and following up on it at least through this RfC on RfCs. :) I think it's fine. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as we're here, throw my proposal on the pile too: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin RFC draft. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would that be replacing the admin part of RFC/U? Rd232 talk 09:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this belongs in a different barrel of proposals personally, and would prefer discussing it separately once the structure of general RfCs has been sorted out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A note on policy RFCs and the new proposal category
If you haven't noticed, the policy RFC category is easily the most popular RFC category. For that reason, I proposed a month ago a new category for proposals along with some other changes. I have now implemented those changes, including a new proposals category. Since the proposals category exists specifically to remove some of the bloat from Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please do not tag RFCs as both proposal RFCs and policy RFCs. @harej 03:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * is the intended difference between the two sections clarified somewhere? Sssoul (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I regret the confusion. It shouldn't be too complicated: the proposals category is for all proposals, including policy proposals, and the policies and guidelines category is for anything to do with policies and guidelines that is not a proposal (e.g. a clarification request). @harej 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * smile: harej, i think the distinction is clear to you because you came up with it, but it's not exactly self-evident. is there anywhere on the already-cluttered-up instructions page where the difference could be clarified? or maybe the question is whether adding another category is really an optimal solution to the perceived "bloat" of the "policies and guidelines" section. Sssoul (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added some clarification. Of course, if it does not work out, we can always get rid of it. @harej 10:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it worth adding a description of what a category should include at the top of each category page (by which I mean for example Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines). This would avoid cluttering the main page but give editors some way of finding out the most appropriate category.  The fact that this information was included on category pages could be added as a one-liner to the main page. Dpmuk (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be a lot clearer if we could rename "policies and guidelines" RFC to "policies and guidelines interpretation/application", which seems to be the major thing that's left if you punt policy/guideline proposals to the proposals category. Rd232 talk 11:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So it would become "Wikipedia policy and guideline applications" and "Wikipedia policy and guideline proposals", more or less? @harej 11:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * i guess so ... if all possible proposals are related to policies & guidelines. but i think "policy and guideline interpretation/clarification" is clearer than "application"; and maybe leaving "proposals" more open is prudent. Sssoul (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I figured that by not specifying "proposals" it could be used in more contexts than just policies and guidelines. So, "Wikipedia policy and guideline clarification" and "Wikipedia proposals" good? @harej 11:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes to leaving "proposals" open. Might as well drop "clarification" though, isn't that inherent in the process? Interpretation/application I suppose is close enough to the same thing that we can leave just "interpretation". Rd232 talk 11:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I am not happy with this whole trend. The more different places to keep track of, the greater opportunity for cligues dominating particular parts, resulting in the rise of ownership and the effective repudiation of NOT BURO. The Liquid Threads extension when it goes liver in a few months should eliminate much of the confusion in long pages of discussion, and permit us to follow thingson the minimum number of pages. People should not have to worry about where they put things for discussion. Myself, except for a dozen very high interest pages, I basically notice things at random.    DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point in general, but in this case the usefulness of the policy/guideline RFC category has been undermined, I think, by the volume of "interpretation of a p/g for a particular article issue", which obscures the more important general policy/proposal discussions. Rd232 talk 11:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * About half of the so-called "policy" RfCs aren't policy RfCs. Should we just reassign them to the correct category?  It wouldn't be very difficult.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it. @harej 01:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Monitoring, clerking, or whatever we call it
I have been involved in numerous RFCs in the past that have gone completely unintelligible because no one monitored them to be sure that RFC conventions were followed. I once had the impression that "RFC regulars" did this task, but have since come to believe that it's left up to whomever happens to pass by or do it. I have recently been monitoring an RFC that I don't plan to participate in (COI: the article in question has appeared numerous times at FAC, and the editor filing the Request is a recused FAC delegate), but would rather not do this task; in fact, I'm not even certain of how to handle some situations, but have stopped the threaded discussions on the page and tried to keep the page formatting in order. There is also a relevant query on the talk page about notifications, to avoid canvassing. Would regulars here be able to answer that question, and can some neutral party take over monitoring this RFC for compliance with RFC instructions? I'd rather not be involved lest I create a COI. Requests for comment/NancyHeise. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any remaining issues on the actual RfC/U have been fixed (meaning that it's otherwise been handled very well); I don't mind keeping a watch. Will respond to any other questions/concerns on the talk page shortly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ncm! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions
I support the change to this page which notes that RFCs may result in sanctions from the community. I believe it reflects practice. Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the recent change, which restores the situation that existed prior to this change. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to oppose this, but completely endorse this change by Rd232. RfC/U is not a final resort, but is one of two other available conduct-dispute-resolution steps - it is more formal (as it edges closer to ArbCom), while WQA is more informal. "RfC/Us are merely a means to (1) highlight conduct problems (generally, more complex ones) and (2) to try to make the user change their approach through community feedback without sanctions. If it's not worth the effort, and you want binding outcomes (or a combination of binding and voluntary outcomes), then you are not in the correct venue." I'm not even sure why anyone would want RfC/U to replace later sanction discussions (at the relevant admin noticeboard) or ArbCom cases if there is a chance issues can be formally resolved without binding measures - in my opinion, it would be leave a gaping gap in dispute resolution for no good reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - in the sort of complex cases we're talking about, involving often long-established editors, RFC/U (as it currently stands, an attempt to resolve issues as amicably as possible) is a necessary step in dispute resolution. Rd232 talk 08:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What happened to Community sanctions?
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance

I recently came to this new page and was surprised by the following passage:


 * What RfC/U CANNOT do is:


 * * Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;

It's been a while since I've been involved in an RfC but in the past, it was clearly understood that an RfC could lead to community sanctions. See this example. Has something changed and, if so, where is the documentation for this change?

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose that this passage be replaced by the following material found at WP:RFC:


 * An RfC may sometimes lead to either bans, or editing restrictions placed by the Wikipedia community, or removal of administrator access by motion of the Arbitration Committee.


 * --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well clearly the texts should be consistent, but I'm flabbergasted that the change at WP:RFC a few days ago, overturning a year-long status quo, was made without any prior discussion. Particularly since if this change is accepted, there needs to be clear guidance on what exactly is meant. I've reverted for now, with clarification. Rd232 talk 16:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There was some dispute as to if RFCs can levy sanctions, and as such I've removed all language saying can/cannot sanction from the page. It appears to me that a broad consensus on an RFC can levy sanctions. Is there disagreement on that point? Why would a broad consensus on RFC not be acceptable to judge sanction? Hipocrite (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've undone that. You can't just delete what has been the status quo for a year, and which was changed recently without even a talkpage notification, never mind prior discussion. A change of this magnitude - when it's been embedded for a substantial time - needs an RFC. Until then, the status quo stays. Rd232 talk 16:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I don't see any disagreement. While one should be cautious in declaring a 'consensus' result from any given RfC, this process is certainly more deliberative than the usual 'fast' route to sanctions: AN/I.  In principle, where any doubt exists about whether or not a sanction imposed through RfC has the support of the community, it could be referred sideways to AN/I for endorsement, or up to RfArb to be enacted by motion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist, 11 Sep: "one of the fundamental principles of RfC/Us that the outcomes are voluntary, voluntary and voluntary. They are not designed for making binding outcomes. RfC/Us are merely a means to (1) highlight conduct problems (generally, more complex ones) and (2) to try to make the user change their approach through community feedback without sanctions. If it's not worth the effort, and you want binding outcomes (or a combination of binding and voluntary outcomes), then you are not in the correct venue." Anyway I'm far from certain that a change in this direction couldn't get consensus; but it clearly needs more discussion on the principle and on the implementation (meaning/guidance at least). The current position seems to be that voluntary outcomes are formally the only possible outcomes, but that if the process doesn't resolve the problem, the discussion/evidence will feed into later processes where involuntary sanctions are feasible. Declaring involuntary sanctions part of RFC/U would be a very substantial change. Rd232 talk 16:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy should be descriptive and not prescriptive. The question we should be asking here should not be "Should sanctions be imposed based upon an RfC" but rather "Have sanctions been imposed based upon an RfC?" If the answer to the latter question is "yes", then there is every reason to alter the wording in question to reflect this fact. Shereth 16:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The example given above was from August 2008. The "voluntary outcomes only" statement has been in place since September 2008. RFC/How to present a case has declared that since March 2009. Plus the example appears to be wrong anyway: User:GoRight/Community sanction cites an August 2008 ANI discussion, not the RFC (and see also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/GoRight). Rd232 talk 16:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Has there been any precedent for community sanctions imposed via RFC since then? I'm not trying to say this change should or should not be made, but merely pointing out that this discussion need not devolve into a spirited debate about what should or should not happen. I don't have the time/resources myself to review the last year's worth of RFC's but if there exists precedent for sanctions imposed therein, the change should be made. If sanctions have not been imposed, then the wording should remain as it is. Shereth 16:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. While there might not be enough to say that a strong broad consensus for sanction can impose them, there's just as much evidence to say that User:Cyclonebiskit is banned from RFC/U as there is evidence that sanctions can-not be derrived from RFCs. The lack of any RFC/U sanctions in no way means that they are prohibited. A prohibition against something requires that people actually support that prohibition - with a reason, rather than a plea to yesterday. I'm wondering why a strong broad consensus at RFC/U to do something isn't actionable. Could someone explain that to me? Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a point, but nevertheless what you are suggesting here is a departure from the status quo (you are the one proposing a change to the wording), therefore it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that a consensus exists to this effect. My point had been to say that if santions have been doled out as the results of RFC discussions previously there is no need for protracted debate on the subject, since updating the language to reflect common practice is only sensible.  If on the other hand you are proposing to make a change to the status quo, then yes, consensus is required to that effect. Shereth</b> 17:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support the idea of community sanctions, including bans and blocks, as an expeditious way to deal with disruptive editing. These are stated as being an acceptable result of an RfC/U at WP:BAN. For the discussions of RfCs to say that an RfC/U cannot "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures" is an explicit contradiction of long-standing policy and—at the very least—leads to unnecessary confusion. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BAN says "In some cases the community may have discussed a block on a relevant noticeboard or in an RfC/U, and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the user. Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community"..." This does not sound like a contradiction of the status quo. Blocks may of course be discussed in an RFC/U - but it's supposed to be a last resort (so not part of the initial drafting of an RFC), and if there is consensus for a block it is not directly enforceable, it needs confirming at ANI or via Arbcom. Rd232 talk 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC/U used to encourage users under discussion to state things from their point of view candidly, without threat of sanction. Wikipedia used to like coming to agreement from participants. Apparently the new way to deal with trouble is aggressive use of blocks and bans. If RFC starts dealing blocks and bans, you'll get sycophantic responses from the subject victim or no participation at all. The ideology of RFC needs to be thought about, is it for constructive criticism, an evidence and opinion gathering process for punishment? In both cases, it is usually an empty step towards RFAR. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * I agree that blocks or bans should be the last resort of an RfC, and only when one of the parties does not cooperate in the discussion or refuses to accept consensus. My problem is with this passage in the text box at Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance:


 * Please keep in mind that RFC/U is a non-binding, informal process.
 * What RfC/U CANNOT do is:
 * Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;


 * This explicitly contradicts Wikipedia policy and should be changed to conform with Wikipedia policy. I suggest the following revision of the text box, quoting Wikipedia Banning policy:


 * Similarly, I am also in favor of resoring Jehochman's edit, to bring this article into conformance with Wikipedia policy.
 * --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The first of the two references to RFC/U at WP:BAN was added on 29 August., the other on 5 November, the latter by Jehochman who also made the change I reverted here. Neither change appears to have been discussed at either WT:BAN or WT:RFC. In sum, if the community wants this, fine. But such consensus needs to be demonstrated by discussion, not smuggled in without discussion. Rd232 talk 20:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The notion of community bans has been around for a long time. It appears in the Banning Policy 0n 7 Nov 2006, and in something closer to the present form on 5 May 2007.  The explicit expansion to encompass an RfC/U appears in the Banning policy on 29 Aug 2009, although bans have been imposed as early as Sept 2007 in the context of RfCs.  This isn't slipping in something new; it's restoring something old.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the disconnect between the pages needs to be resolved.
 * I believe that RfC/U's will be signifcantly harmed by permitting non-consensual outcomes. WP:Dispute resolution is fundamentally about resolving problems, and that requires open, fearless communication between the parties.  This can't happen when you have someone pounding the table for involuntary sanctions with every comment made by the targeted editor.  It's not good enough to restrict it to "extreme" situations:  most of the editors filing RfC/U's already believe that their dispute is "extreme".  Non-extreme situations don't produce RfC/U filings.
 * This matches the voluntary/consensual standards used in all content- and policy-based RfCs as well: The community also imposes no involuntary sanctions on editors that ask for help in resolving questions of sourcing, neutrality, and so forth.
 * Also, as a bit of 'practical reality', most RfC/U pages get very little attention from any editor that isn't already involved in the dispute. These people are, by definition, not able to impose involuntary sanctions.  ("Involved" admins aren't allowed to impose blocks, ever.)  Therefore for most RfC/U filings, "the community" never bothers to show up, and therefore "the community" can't impose anything anyway.
 * "I think this dreadful editor should be perma-banned" can be taken -- and routinely is taken -- to the admins' noticeboard, where such requests are considered routine.
 * Therefore, based on what I think is both common sense for dispute resolution and the actual current practice of the community, I think that the disconnect between these pages should be resolved by changing WP:BAN to name only AN as a typical forum for community sanctions, and to return RFC/U to its consensus-driven nature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done that - removed mention of RFC/U from WP:BAN for now. If there is consensus demonstrated, BAN and RFC can be adapted appropriately - and hopefully in a way that makes clear exactly what is meant. Rd232 talk 21:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and think the the current version of BAN is best for the time being. I did hope to make it clearer in my edit, but I self-reverted that as the wording was a bit convoluted and not all cases really need RfC (where conduct is obvious to uninvolved parties, it is not needed). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The point about the involvement of users in RFC/Us (i.e. mostly involved users comment) is a very good one. Rd232 talk 21:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Digging into the archives at Talk:Banning policy I found that this debate has been around for a long time. One comment from April 2007 said: "I personally have banned more people just from WP:RFCU then have ever passed through the community noticeboard...."
 * Now I am not going to insist that RfCs are the only possible venue for imposing community bans; but we should have a well defined procedure and RfCs seem to have a long tradition of having been used for this purpose. When I opened this discussion I asked for an explanation of the removal of RfCs from the process in the past year or so and I'd welcome comments from old-timers on this issue.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, as a point of fact, no individual editor can impose a "community" ban. I suspect that the editor meant that he, as an admin, blocked more editors over disputes that he encountered at RFC/U.  Given that Mackensen participated in just five CN discussions (I manually checked all 14 archives), I'm sure that his statement is accurate as far as it goes -- but it doesn't really go very far.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

New RfC posting tool
No longer requires an email address or an account or any of that! Available on the Toolserver. By the way, now that we have this, do we really have a need for the "manually-added entries" pages anymore? @harej 00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

New edit intros for RFC/U
I have created a new edit intro, RFCU editintro, which is activated from the forms on Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation. They state the obvious: make sure you're not accidentally overwriting a page. I was asked to create this after a very experienced user almost wrote over an old RFC, thinking that the text in the edit window was just sample text. @harej 22:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Borrowing the logic developed for the Article Wizard, I've improved it so RFCU editintro tests if the page exists, and if it does, it shows RFCU editintro B. Rd232 talk 13:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome! @harej 18:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

the editing restrictions imposed on me
note: I have removed the text which was here because I was informed bellow that I am not allowed to use RfC to have review of sanctions. Loosmark (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note what's written at the top of this page: "NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment. Please follow Wikipedia:Requests for comment." This is in the wrong place. I don't even think RfC is the right place for this in general; if I'm not mistaken, these restrictions fall under an ArbCom case (Digwuren? Can't remember for sure which; there's so many about EE), which I do believe means an appeal belongs at arbitration enforcement or by appealing directly to the committee. Either way, though, definitely not on this talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well he didn't tell me this is a Digwuren sanction. Anyway please give me the correct link for RfC because I can't find it. I'll then just copy the text there. Loosmark (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already been reviewed at WP:ANI (see latest archive page), although formally speaking WP:AE would be the appropriate forum according to WP:DIGWUREN. But whichever, asking for yet another review at this point is little more than forum shopping. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I want RfC on the sanctions. Please indicate me where should I go? Is this the place ? Loosmark (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * RFCs are focused on a pattern of user conduct, not on specific sanctions. I do believe we've already mentioned that AE is the proper venue, but honestly, I'd not hold my breath for any result that's different from what you already got at ANI. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ok then, I will try to copy this to AE. Loosmark (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I have removed the above text. Loosmark (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Summaries
At Requests for comment/Dbachmann 4 we seem to have agreed a summary. I think a summary is a useful thing to have on RFCs (some more so than others perhaps). In this RFC the summary was added at the bottom, but I think it makes more sense to have the summary at the top than to have it at the bottom and point to it from the top - particularly since the summary in the current mode is made part of the archived discussion, even though it has to be done after archiving. I made RFCUsummary for a reason: if we want people to actually read the summaries, we should put them above the fold, and that's what the template was designed for. Rd232 talk 16:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, more broadly, I'd encourage people to think about some guidelines on how to do summaries efficiently and neutrally. Rd232 talk 16:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point. Summaries are simply a note for the archives, and for the case where the consensus marks the resolution of that dispute, or where a resolution has otherwise been reached despite community input. That is why they are generally put at the bottom. Unless a very clear consensus exists, or there is a special reason to have a summary (such as such a resolution), they should not be happening at all. Summaries are not made to adhere to a template that you unilaterially created without consulting or discussing with anyone else. Similarly, summaries are not a substitute for the views expressed, nor are they intended to hide the views expressed; the entire point of RfC/Us is to gather views, have all those views read, and make (and read) the agreements made - trying to shortcut away from that sort of defeats the objective. The fact that summaries were controversial (both in the above Dbachmann RfC, and a previous Fut Perf one) suggests that the principle stands: unless there is agreement or there is a special reason or a combination of both, it is generally an unhelpful timesink. All that said, providing extra guidance can be arranged, though arguably, one would think that the "forum" could be used for that function too where particular cases arise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Harsh tone; you know the pressured circumstances under which the template was created (closing that RFC). And in general for these things it's a lot easier to show than to tell, and I'm quite experienced with templates so it wasn't a big deal to do. If we don't want to use it, that's fine. Either way, I think the summary should be where people actually will see it, if they look at an archived RFC - at the top. And a summary is just that - it does not replace or negate the process, it just clarifies it post hoc. And FWIW, one way to do it would be a collaboratively-written summary during the RFC, which might be helpful for the process too; worth a go perhaps. Rd232 talk 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should try to focus on what is written rather than your perceptions which previously proved to escalate something quite unneeded. The criticism is not with showing rather than telling; it is with foolishly attempting to import the minutia from a specific situation into something applies far more broadly. The problem with summaries (which resulted in so much disagreement and time being taken to write the one out in that RfC) is that they can needlessly colour perceptions as to what was done during the RfC, what was decided by consensus during the RfC, etc. etc. This issue does not arise when readers go through all of the RfC and finally read the summary at the bottom (or not). While it may be your intention (and faith) that it does not negate the process, the practical reality speaks for itself. The direction of an RfC can change even during the last 24 hours or so; even that RfC led to a number of partial and struck endorsements. That idea would probably not be practical, but I do appreciate that you are brainstorming. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Haven't you two already had this discussion? Or was it someone else that NCM was ticking off for writing summaries?
 * Personally, I find summaries, especially prepared by an experienced editor that's willing to stick around and discuss any disputes about the summary, to be very helpful for long RfC/U pages. They have a way of stripping out all the "why" and "wherefore" and tangential information and reporting a concise statement of the actual outcomes, e.g., "X agrees to be kinder to newbies.  Y agrees to not edit war."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Candidate Page Section?
I entered a new RfC/U by editing the Box that lists them (as I could best figure out the instructions), trying to get it into the Candidate Page section. Instead it turned up in the approved pages. Could someone who knows more about the syntax of that Box clarify the instructions and/or fix it so it works properly. Thanks --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Listing RfC/U's in RfC topical lists
It seems to me that if RfC/U's were listed on the topical RfC lists, they might attract a wider range of well-informed comments without the potential for running afoul of WP:Canvassing guidelines. A clutzy way to do this would be to add the existing Rfctag template at the beginning of an RfC/U. A more elegant way would be if someone who knows template code would develop a customized template to have the same effect on RfC/U's, saying something like:
 * This RfC/U has been listed on the Subject 1 (and Subject 2...) list(s); interested editors are encouraged to comment.

Any reactions to this idea? Any volunteers to code a new template? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * RfC/Us are about conduct, not content - the need to post under a particular topical list does not arise as it would probably not be appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of my plan to transparently integrate the RFC/U system into my bot so that it was essentially the same process but the bot would handle the list. This ended up not happening for some reason. rfctag-alt still exists as a vestige of that effort. @harej 01:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why it would "not be appropriate" to advise those looking at the RfCs on a given topic of other RfC/Us that concern the conduct of editors who edit articles touching on that topic. I agree that RfC/Us are about conduct, not content. But I also take it as agreed that we want to encourage wider participation in RfC/Us. It seems that editors interested in a topic area would also be interested in -- and be able to give informed comment on -- the conduct of an editor editing articles in that topic area.

Could Ncmvocalist please clarify this objection. Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * NCM can give his own reasons, but here are mine:
 * Having an RfC/U filed "against" you doesn't prove that you've actually done anything wrong. A 'warning' to other editors that you're working in this or that area may be completely inappropriate.
 * RfC/Us are sometimes filed when absolutely no content has been harmed. Editors who are doing The Right Thing™ in the mainspace may be engaging in personal attacks on talk pages or irritating project pages with persistent demands for anti-consensus changes.
 * People watching the content RfC lists are usually there because they know something about the content, not about resolving disputes.
 * Spamming an RfC across the maximal set of pages harms the overall RfC process by forcing potential respondents to wade through irrelevant (to them) non-content listings to find the ones that are actually on topic.
 * Overall, I don't think that it's a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposals category has been deprecated
Considering that the policy RfC list is more maintained than it used to be, and to avoid unnecessary forking of discussion, I have discontinued the "Wikipedia proposals" category. @harej 01:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving draft RfCs into project space
''moved to Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Assistance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)''

RFC/U at ANI?
This page says "User conduct RfCs are announced on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to encourage wide participation. Postings include a brief statement of the behavior in dispute."

Does anyone do this systematically? (The wording "are announced" implies that it actually and routinely happens, not merely that it is permitted.) Is this supposed to be a statement that posting about the RfC/U at ANI isn't generally considered canvassing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * no, it happens automatically via transclusion of a template at the top of WP:ANI. That template, RFCUlist, is also seen at WP:RFC/U. Rd232 talk 22:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up - that part was written prior to the transclusion template existing. However, there is generally no good cause (anymore) to post a separate message at AN/ANI while the system of transclusion (the template) exsits at the top of AN/ANI pages. I am aware that one certifier has done so in the most recent RfC/U filed, though I think it was done based on the ambiguity on this page. Will fix that up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes
I've made some productive changes that reflect what is actually done. This is not a proposal to do something new. Collectonian reverted. I'm open to discussing the changes on the merits, but I prefer that they not be reverted without any sort of explanation. Please discuss on the merits. RFC does not place sanctions, but immediately following an RFC an administrator, the community, or ArbCom are free to place any sanctions they feel are called for based on the RFC. Telling people otherwise is false and does a great disservice. Jehochman Make my day 22:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It kind of already said that - your changes expanded on part of that, whilst removing the rest, giving a dramatic change in emphasis. I suggest combining your text and the original, thusly:

An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information. However, that information may feed into subsequent dispute resolution which can lead to involuntary sanctions. In addition, the information and consensus developed in an RfC may be referenced to justify the issuance of sanctions or warnings by administrators, the Wikipedia community, or the Arbitration Committee. In the event of an RfC about an administrator or functionary, the results may be used to justify the removal of access privileges by the Arbitration Committee. Rd232 talk 22:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect Collectonian reverted it simply because I was one of the editors involved in that consensus-driven editing process, (doing essentially what Rd232 proposes here, which I fully support).
 * Collectonian has reverted some explanatory text I added at WP:ORG and demanded that I follow BRD at while flatly refusing to allow me do so (BRD requires editors to discuss changes with the perrson who reverted them, not merely to discuss changes in general). I am making assumptions, but she hasn't edited this page in more than six months, and her edit summary is "another fundamental change without discussion nor consensus".
 * I've posted an explanation of Wikipedia's actual rules about editing at BRD's talk page, if anyone's interested in a short list of policies that specifically forbid reverting changes solely on the grounds that they weren't discussed in advance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Collectonian was justified in reverting Jehochman for the stated reasons; I don't think anyone could respond differently in the circumstances, except to complicate the BRD process by doing 3 steps in 1 which would not work. I think there is undue emphasis on certain points in Rd232's version, which complicates the process and moves users away from the aim of making people resolve things voluntarily and amicably. Accordingly, I suggest the following: An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions (such as involuntary editing restrictions, blocks, and bans) on a user; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information. However, if a dispute is not voluntarily resolved through an RfC, the information and consensus from an RfC may be used in subsequent admin noticeboard discussions and/or dispute resolution to justify the issuance of involuntary sanctions which limit or remove an user's privilleges. Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good ideas. Instead of saying "cannot impose sanctions", which invites wikilawyering if somebody gets sanctioned after an RfC, how about this:


 * The RfC process is not used to request or place a user under sanctions, such as a block or an editing restriction. Instead, RfC is a tool for collecting information, assessing consensus, and providing feedback. If an RfC subject responds poorly to feedback, either through their words or actions, involuntary sanctions may then be applied through the normal administrative, community sanction, or arbitration processes.  In the event of an RfC about an administrator or functionary, the results may be used to justify the removal of access privileges by the Arbitration Committee.


 * As an example, consider a user who has been accused of plagiarism, something that can be subtle and difficult to identify upon casual investigation. An RfC may be initiated to gather evidence and determine whether the plagiarism is just a few isolated mistakes or a serious ongoing pattern.  If there is a serious ongoing pattern, and the user's final response to the RFC is "No, everything I'm doing is fine, and I'm going to continue doing exactly the same", a community discussion may immediately follow, referencing the RfC, and requesting a community sanction.  Jehochman Make my day 14:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your version has even more issues with it. It is distorting sanction process with RfC/U, and also, we wait to see how people act after an RfC rather than waiting on assurances which may or may not come, and may or may not reflect future actions. But to resolve the wikilawyering concern, I'd amend the first line of my previous suggestion to say "RfC/U is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information - it is not the venue for requesting or imposing involuntary sanctions (such as involuntary editing restrictions, blocks, and bans) on a user." Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your change is helpful. Jehochman Make my day 15:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I support Jehochman's original changes, although when they showed up I suspected someone would object because of absence of discussions.
 * Jehochman's changes provide valuable guidance to editors about how the process actually works. Editors encountering disruptive editors can (and have) become confused about where to go to sort things out after discussions begin to lead nowhere.  Without Jehochman's addition, the text seems to say that RfCs do not provide a useful path for dealing effectively with disruptive editors; I don't think that was intended. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps providing a link to the sanction process is more suitable than providing details of the sanction process when this page deals with, for better or for worse, RfC and RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your proposal too heavily emphasizes voluntary agreements. If people are being reasonable to begin with, they will not end up at RfC/U.  The process is a form of intervention where an editor is given a last chance to shape up before serious sanctions are applied. Given the 2:1 support on this thread in favor of changes, I'm going to try again with a new version, and am open to further changes.  Please specify what's wrong, if anything, and we'll work out the details.  The main goal is to prevent this policy from being viewed as a toothless waste of time. Jehochman Make my day 18:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your assumption of guilt is simply not true. For example, I believe that the first RfC I ever read was filed against an admin that stopped an edit war by protecting The Wrong Version.  The editor who filed the complaint was an active participant in the edit war.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Link? But yes, people may be accused and be innocent of wrongdoing. A voluntary agreement presumes that there was wrongdoing, and there's a voluntary agreement to stop.  If somebody is reasonable, that agreement may often come sooner.  If a matter gets to RfC, there's a substantial chance that some sort of involuntary consequence may follow. Jehochman Make my day 22:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A voluntary agreement is an agreement to change, and should be regarded in a positive sense. Unfortunately, I think most matters reported to RFC/U never seem to get anywhere; perhaps they should, but that is another matter. But Jehochman, I think your latest version is a fair statement of the situation,.   DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here. This happened more recently than I had remembered.  User:Paul gene filed the RfC/U (and complaints in several other places) because David Ruben stopped a week-long edit war over MEDRS' status.  Paul didn't want WP:MEDRS to be considered a guideline because it agreed with some of Wikipedia's major content policies that he disliked (primarily WP:PSTS).  Paul left Wikipedia shortly after it became clear that MEDRS was never going to be re-written to his specifications.  It would be unfortunate for anyone to conclude that Paul's wrangling, disruption, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT was somehow David's fault solely because Paul filed an RfC/U that named David.
 * Family counselors have a relevant concept: the 'identified patient'.  The 'identified patient', or the person named in an RfC/U, is not always the person who is causing the problem, and it is unfortunate if editors assume that mere accusations are proof of guilt.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Undent

This discussion seems to be going off on a tangent; I don't see any "assumption of guilt" in the change. It just makes it clear that if an RFC/U identifies serious problems with an editor, the information and consensus that it develops can then be brought forward to other appropriate levels of the process. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We have comments above like, "If people are being reasonable to begin with, they will not end up at RfC/U."
 * Reasonable editors most certainly can, and do, end up at RfC/U, because any two tendentious editors can bring them there. Being reasonable yourself is not any kind of protection against having complaints made against you.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A new template proposed
Ludwigs2 created this template for comparing debate points side by side. See a demonstration. What do you think? Sole Soul (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Lame duck RFC/U
I've had an RFC/U going on for a few weeks now (Requests for comment/Asgardian), where thus far only one respondent was not someone whom I personally invited (and even he, I'm sure, endorsed because of something I posted somewhere). I'm wondering why that is, if it's simply because the case is not all that compelling to outsiders, or if people in general find the situation uninteresting and unworthy of comment. I mean come on, we haven't even had an outsider go "You guys are a bunch of lamers and need to let this nonsense go" - at least that would be some kind of community response. ;) I have been trying to sell WP's DR system to people as the way to resolve conflicts; I have been promising that community input would be useful for the situation, but thus far we have had none and I'm feeling kind of silly and ineffective because of it. Anyone have any advice?

On the bright side, one thing it has done is to be a centralized place for all this crap that has been building up for years, where we can all point to what the situation has been heading up to. This case may need to go to mediation, or even arbitration, and we've got everything neatly lined up.

Still, that's not what my main intention was in all of this. I was looking for community input, and remain wholly unsatisfied thus far. How can I generate more interest? BOZ (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There would be little point in mediation after an RFC/U except in limited cases.  By then the bridges are burned.  I looked at the RFC and it seems to be progressing fine to me.  The sort of clear cut judgment that you seem to want is unlikely in a case like this.  Gigs (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but not actually surprised, that you didn't get the level of response that you hoped for. RfC/U pages can often do much good simply by being a centralized location for discussions.  Yes, many problems move from RfC/U through to ArbCom.
 * If you're inclined, you might consider 'being the community' for someone else by showing up at one or more of the other three RfC/U pages. If each person in an RfC/U commented on each of the other certified pages, then every page would get at least nine 'outside' comments.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, Gigs, the named subject of the RfC hasn't posted a single word on either the RfC page or its talk page. How is zero response "progressing fine" from your perspective?  It's usually quite difficult to resolve a long-standing problem with an editor who refuses to talk to you.
 * I've left a friendly reminder for the editor. Since it was filed just before the Christmas holiday, he may have forgotten about his plans to respond.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BOZ's concern seemed to indicate a total lack of participation. I see plenty of comments there.  If he expects an outsider to come declare one side right and the other side wrong, then that's probably not going to happen. Gigs (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe not... unless there is some late-in-the-game, "oh, I just saw this now" sort of response. I guess the conflict is too entrenched in the niche in which it is happenning, and most likely the only people interested enough to respond are those directly affected by it, most of whom have already responded. But as being a centralized discussion place for those people so far, it has done that job most excellently. BOZ (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've become concerned lately at the poor quality of RFCs. We have, on one political area, a person with a deliberate pov, who carefully doesn not edit, but when an RFC is posted, pounces on it and gives his very pov. Not helpful if you are looking for perspective.


 * In the good old days, we used to get qualified people from allied areas with no pov who tried to bring "something better" to the discussion. I admit it took forever and by the time he got there, the disputants had forgotten why they were arguing. But it was higher quality!  :)


 * The responses I've had lately are junk. I now recruit people, sometimes with the other editor's permission, to give an opinion. I haven't had much satisfaction there either, but at least the selected editor has a reputation to protect. The last guy from here had a user page that looked like you'd expect on a vandal's page. Who needs people like that? Student7 (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A long time ago I thought that (and may even have suggested it somewhere) that some kind of lottery approach could be helpful. Have lists of people interested in certain topics, and when an RFC is started, a bot notifies some of them at random of it. Just as a way of trying to pull people into RFCs without endangering neutrality by having participants do it. Obviously someone's going to say "but we have the topic-based lists of RFCs..." but there's a big a difference when you actively try and pull people in. For one thing, there'd be a certain moral responsibility, a bit like jury service (well, citizens' jury). Rd232 talk 14:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Multi-person RFC/U
There is a topic which I believe has a problem with a group of editors using tag-team techniques to advocate a position. It looks like there hasn't been a multi-person RfC/U in a long time, though I don't see anything in the guidelines to prohibit one. A simple issue would be how to name such an RFC/U, since using all of their names would be unwieldy. Would something like "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pro-X editors" ("X" being the topic/POV) be acceptable? Any thoughts on how to proceed?  Will Beback   talk    02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You could go with "Pro-X editors", you could name the involved persons in alphabetical order, you could just name it "X". @harej 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC "specialist"
I have encountered an RFC "specialist" in a particular subject matter. He has a definite pov. Everytime, there is a rfc, he jumps in with a comment favoring one side, normally. He does not edit.

It seems to me that someone with (say) a clear political pov, should avoid giving third party comments on political article disputes. Wikipedia might be better served if they commented on place or medical article disputes. Right now, this has had the long term affect of maintaining a serious problem in reporting anything that resembles the general news on this particular series of articles.

I think the guidelines should go on a bit about being an "outside" commentator. What "outside" means, and stressing a neutral pov towards the material. Student7 (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I recognize your frustration, but we really do want comments from everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was on an article where an outside comment was requested. The volunteer prefixed his remarks with "I have made no previous edits on (topic) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here." This was impressive IMO. Talk about high standards and honesty!


 * Compare that to the "lurker" mentioned above with a pov! Student7 (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger
Please ake a look at the debate on the Talk on Wendy Doniger. Goethan keeps on removing the criticism section. I agree that the current criticism section is not NPOV so I have revised it with counteropposing views. I tried to make it NPOV but it keeps on getting reverted. Please take a look. Raj2004 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've moved this comment here, as being less inappropriate than putting it in the instructions page. However, what you really need to do is to read and follow the instructions for getting a third opinion or starting a Request for Comments.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Denial of Access Procedural Flaw in RfC Process
This is related to the previous section but it's a very specific procedural point. I can add article links if you want, but I would rather address the generic issue here.


 * An editor has posted a preemptive RfC on an article, worded in such a way as to bias the answers
 * I have posted an alternative wording in the article which addresses the same points but in a way which reflects the consensus of the majority of editors in the page (basically all of the active editors bar the above editor and one who wishes to remain silent on the whole issue)
 * I now want to offer both to RfC on a compare and contrast basis to see how commenting editors answer the two variants.
 * However, I can't modify the automatic text added by the initial RfC.
 * So I decided to add a codicil RfC in the manual section. However the instructions forbid opening a second manual RfC when an automatic one is extant.
 * Hence any editor can effectively create a denial of access to the RfC noticeboard by posting a spoiler RfC framed in a POV that can be quite different to the consensus view or a neutrally framed view.

This seems a bit of a flaw in the system to me. -- TerryE (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The request for comment to which TerryE objects can be found here. A previous, vaguely worded RfC (my fault on the vague wording) had resulted in two responses that got us nowhere with the specific issues. When that RfC expired, I began a new, more detailed request at the suggestion of an uninvolved editor. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My intent here was to raise an issue with the meta-process, that is that any editor (including myself) can create such a denial of access to the RfC procedure or bias its outcome. Perhaps I should have framed this as an anonymous "Sally and Bob" interaction / protocol. I kept this non-specific for a reason.  Specific cases should be addressed through the relevant article/user talk pages and the Wikipedia dispute procedures designed to handle such cases.  Their details do not belong here and we shouldn't be discussing case-specifics on this talk page. -- TerryE (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Why can't you modify the automatic text added by the initial RfC?
 * 2) Where is this supposed rule against having multiple RfCs open at once?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the original posting editor is non-cooperating with the proposed alternative wording (which is likely in this NPOV tactical scenario) then such changes would fall foul of WP:TPO. As far as I can see the bot limits its inclusion to the scope of the original post.  There doesn't seem to be a way of appending a codicil.  Also you can't change the bot copied text: : This list is updated by a bot; your edits will be overwritten if you edit this page.
 * See: : Do not list a discussion on this page if the discussion in question is already tagged with  .  I assumed from this that it wasn't permitted.  If you know where the source is I'll have a look and tell you.  Since the bot keys the section by article name, it would need some pretty sophicated algo to overload this 1-1 relationship with a 1-many one.  I haven't actually tried multiple RfCs but I don't want to do such experiments on a live Q.  Also what you've got here is the same RfC but two different framings of the one issue.  Having this as two separate issues would be very confusing to the commenting editors.
 * -- TerryE (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I brought this up earlier on the page, but you're not supposed to alter another editor's signed comments on a talk page. TerryE linked to the guideline already, but since the person creating an RFC is supposed to sign the RFC, and the RFC is going on a talk page, the talk page guidelines for altering another editor's comments will be in effect. I proposed altering the wording of WP:RFC to make this clearer, because of an incident in which two people were edit-warring over an RFC created by a third party, but didn't receive much input. I should probably have been more bold and made those changes, because nobody actually objected to the changes. --  At am a  頭 17:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You are permitted (with the usual rules for consensus and showing respect for other editors) to substitute a different summary at the top, to negotiate changes after posting, and -- above all -- to assume that the editors who are taking the time to comment are not so stupid as to believe that the very brief summary listed on the topical page is the only thing that they need to read. The summary statement is supposed to be short, which means that they are very frequently inadequate, incomplete, and followed by lengthy disquisitions by multiple editors involved in the dispute.
 * The bot picks up the text between the RfC tag and the timestamp. Every page is checked for changes every half hour until the Rfctag template is removed.  Signing RfC questions is something that we're doing for the convenience of the bot (which looks for a timestamp), and not because the question always and necessarily 'belongs to' a single editor.  In some RfCs, the question has been negotiated and copyedited in advance, and it would be silly to say that a question developed collaboratively can't ever be amended by the original collaborators simply because the Wikimedia software won't permit multiple people to simultaneously author a message.   WP:TPO plainly states that there are situations in which changing someone else's comment is acceptable:  "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed."
 * You are permitted to have multiple RfCs ("separate questions") on the same page ("article"). You should not have multiple entries of the same RfC ("same question") on a single topical page (like the econ RfC page).  Additionally, you are permitted to have multiple entries for the same question if the question is interdisciplinary (e.g., a question relating to abortion law might get listed with both "law" and "medicine").  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify one possible source of confusion: You can't, in the end, force another editor to quit asking a question that you think is silly or misguided.  If someone is really determined to ask whether anagrams of a politician's name should be included in the lead, for example, then you can't force him (or her) to stop.
 * However, it is equally true that editor can't force you to believe that his (or her) RfC answers a question that it does not ask. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the right and freedom of an editor to ask a Q is a cornerstone of Wikipedia -- no matter how silly or irrelevant it is, and I have never suggested otherwise.  I also agree that maybe 90% of RfCs are simple uncontentious Qs or in the case of complex ones, the wording has been framed by some form of consensus.  The RfC process works for this majority category, and that is not in dispute.  This thread has always been how we address this remaining minority case where the relationships between the editors active on the page has become dysfunctional and in the simplest case there is an M:N split between editors.  There may be consensus between the M editors. N might be 1 or more.


 * One of the first steps in the resolution process for such a schism is to go to RfC and this is the scenario that we are discussing. There is ample survey evidence that how you frame a question can have a significant impact on the responses, especially as (in my experience) most responding editors seem to focus on the question as asked and don't bother trawling all of the related context and discussions that may have preceded this.  What I am talking about.  Let me try a test case of what you suggest to see if your suggestion works in practice.


 * Thanks for your clarification on point (2). If someone can point me at the source repository, then I can come back to you with any specific issues.  However if this is indeed the case, then the wording on the edit form for the manual submission is wrong and needs to be changed.  -- TerryE (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the wording of a question can make an enormous difference. I've seen RfCs whose questions amounted to nothing more than "Who favors motherhood and apple pie?"
 * When you encounter these, you need to respond to the RfC. You need to write a response that indicates your concerns with the question:  "I, too, favor motherhood and apple pie, but our dispute isn't about motherhood and apple pie:  it's about whether it's WP:DUE for the word 'crackpot' to appear in the lead of this BLP."
 * Outside editors frequently do not read the entire talk page, but they do very frequently read everything under the RfC tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with WhatamIdoing. It's like the question, "have you stopped beating your wife"; just point out the fallacy of the question itself. I doubt that many people are going to read an RfC question and ignore all of the text after it before giving a response. --  At am a  頭 09:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC Categorisation Hierarchy
Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for comment currently lists some 1,300 articles. The vast majority relate to individual users, arbitrations, etc. However a small subset are consultation RfCs such as Requests for comment/Content dispute resolution are RfCs relating to Wikipedia processes and policies often initiated by the Arbitration Committee itself. Some are tagged with Category:Requests for comment, some with Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee archives, etc., but there does seem to be an inconsistent approach to the use of categories within this Wikipedia Namespace. This lack of structure limits the transparency of these processes for editors wanting to understand these and meaningfully contribute.

Just having a coherent set of RfC sub-categories and sentencing all RfCs by sub-category would really help here. -- TerryE (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should rename them according to a standardized naming scheme? harej  20:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that that is necessary, we already have the categories style, policy and proj but there is some inconsistency as to where these should be homed especially when they are moved into the archive bucket. Perhaps we just create sub categories for Requests for comment on style, etc., and make sure that we tag any archived or open Wikipedia RfC "article" with that category so that when they are moved into the archive, then they are still accessible as a sub-category to Category:Requests for comment.


 * Appending this sort of category tag to all extant articles is just a matter of data mining into a spreadsheet for manual validation. Once this spreadsheet has been reviewed, it can then be exported to feed a ~30 line perl script which uses the Mediawiki API to add the tags.  I've just migrated a small knowledgebase (not in the WikiXXX space) into a mediawiki engine so I've had plenty of experience of this :) -- TerryE (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello? ello? llo?  lo?
Hi, I posted the RfC for the Effects of the 2008-2010 automotive industry crisis on the United States article, and was just wondering, as its only a few days shy of a month now, how many people are active at this project? Is the lack of any response because that article is so long and confused or because there's nobody here? Abrazame (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You might try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics. Maurreen (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. Thank you.  I've done so.


 * Did you know that this page is actually linked as the talk page for the Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies page? That doesn't seem right to me.  Shouldn't that RfC page link to a discussion page overseen by the Economy, trade and companies projects?  Abrazame (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Almost all of the RfC insfrastructure pages have their talk pages redirected here. Since most of the comments are about the process or the bot, it is generally quite functional.
 * And, yes, RfCs are fairly often ignored by the community. Since you know how frustrating it is to request help and not get any sort of response, then perhaps you'd like to look for a couple of open RfCs and help out a few other editors.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I took your suggestion and dove into one of the other RfCs there. A store in the mall whose stock received too much coverage in its article.  I expect beatification.


 * However, I have to press further with a complaint that there is no link whatsoever on the Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies to any page regarding that project. I very much appreciate being directed by Maurreen, but this should be the sort of thing that is provided as a permanent link from that page.  (Indeed, from all the RfC infrastructure pages.)  I can appreciate that most of the comments here are about the process or the bot, but then, given that it's not a project-specific page, that would be the case, wouldn't it?  With the rest wasting a little more time searching for their way to the project page or just giving up.  Is it possible you can stovepipe this to an admin who can just determine whether it makes sense to add links to the respective RfC subcategory pages (and I don't see why it wouldn't), or is this one of those raise-it-somewhere-else kind of things?  Abrazame (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many hundreds of WikiProjects. There are exactly nine RfC pages.  How would you decide which projects would be the 'winners' in this advertising process?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your comments, but I have the sense this issue is being toyed with. Which projects do you think would be appropriate to link to from the Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies page?  That's precisely my question.  I was looking to engage some responsible and neutral people who are proficient in their understanding of economies, businesses, trade, what foreign governments do for and against domestic and foreign companies, what has happened to companies in previous major recessions, etc., so that if this is worthy of examination beyond the worldwide article, it can be given an historical and contextual examination and not one by a Libertarian keen on disparaging and destroying all established groups from corporations to political parties.  I was looking for any and every project page that might be interested in, knowledgeable but neutral about, and willing and able to tackle, a major overhaul of a huge and predominantly POV article requiring hundreds of edits if not scrapping entirely and starting from scratch.  If there is more than one, all the better: I can draw from a wider number of editors or I can pinpoint the project I think is most needed at the article in questioin.  The RfC page notes "trade" and "companies" in addition to "economy"; if there are "trade" and "companies" project pages, they should be linked as well.  (Are there?)


 * Not only couldn't I find a link from the Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies page, but in my brief wading through WikiProjects directory pages I failed to find WikiProject Economics there, either. What subcategory contains that project?  And why does the WikiProject Council/Directory not provide (or link to) a list of all projects?  When I finally find a page promising a List of WikiProjects, I find it's a redirect back to WikiProject Council/Directory.  Surely you see this is a problem that needs fixing.  Either it's desirable that these projects be accessible, or it isn't.  Either it's beneficial to have experts weigh in on the value to the project of a particular article in their purview, or it isn't.  And either we give individual editors like myself the opportunity to choose to request comment from informed individuals or we don't.  The implication of a specialized Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies is not that bureaucrats are breaking up the RfCs to bite size, it's that there are knowledgeable editors reviewing such a list.  Yet if it's run by a bot, how are we to know if anybody actually reviews all these requests, and if lack of a response is a tacit "pass" or "bail", or if whatever comments as are posted at other RfCs aren't all from people who were already at the article and/or talk page, stumbled upon it, or just cruise the RfC pages?


 * I'll take your question seriously and say that if it's not self-evident (as in there only are one or two projects that would be relevant to each of the nine RfC pages), then the way I would decide which projects are "winners" in an "advertising process" is asking the projects themselves to nominate which if any of the current RfC pages they think they have a unique wellspring of ability and will to actively participate in the RfCs. If there was some unacceptable result (?), the answer might be to link each RfC page to a directory/list of the reasonable project page possibilities.  Something tells me that the majority of the project pages are regional in scope and a great many more are entertainment-related.  Again, if there is more than one possibility from which to choose — and if, as you imply, there is no good way to deal with "advertising" — then I ask: where does an editor like myself go to figure who I want to register an inquiry with?  Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Which project would I choose for the Econ RfC page? I'd probably consider the projects listed here, here, here and perhaps something from a specific geographical area, depending on the specific question at hand.
 * That's a couple of dozen possible projects. We cannot, as a purely technical matter, simultaneously redirect the econ RfC talk page to a dozen different projects.  No matter which one project you chose, the answer would be wrong for a majority of the related RfCs.
 * Oh, and I had no trouble finding WP:WikiProject Economics the directory; in fact, it seems to be listed twice (once under "Science"). The directory is a manually constructed and maintained list.  If a project doesn't choose to be listed, or if it chooses to have its listing be wrong, outdated, or hard to find, then that's its choice.
 * What most editors seem to do is to look at the top of the talk page for the article in question, or a closely related article, and assume that any WikiProject that tagged the article is likely to be interested. For example, WP:WikiProject Automobiles might be interested in your question.
 * I am sorry that you've found the (unfortunately common) lack of response frustrating. Wikipedia's processes only works to the extent that its editors voluntarily choose to participate, which is another way of saying:  If you don't think it's worth your time and effort to comment at someone else's RfC, then what makes you think that anyone else will think it's worth his (or her) time and effort to comment at yours?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Surely the underlying issue here isn't necessarily to do with a specific project. It's more that RfCs can be initiated for a range of reasons: some are a sophisticated and constructive request for some fresh and independent eyes to facilitate moving a point of discussion forward; some are just a case of one or more editors using the RfC as a tactical tool to bring moral support behind their position; others verge on a desperate cry from the heart for help. My feeling is that the real underlying issue is one of supply and demand: to put it simply, we don't enough experience editors like WhatamIdoing who monitor and respond to these queues as a part of their general support to Wikipedia processes and governance.

OK, I realise that we need to have a balance here. Editors who assist on these issues need some minimum level of understanding of the Wikipedia policies and processes. I would assume that the editor profile of Wikipedia is like most such internet resources and follows a classic Pareto distribution, and put simply 10% of the editors do 90% editing. It's that top few percent that we need to attract. I have actually discussed this issue on another talk page, How do we service noticeboards like this.

That top few percent probably spend more that 10-20 hrs a week supporting Wikipedia. If we could get even 10% of these spending 30 mins of that time servicing these queues and policing spam, then we simply wouldn't have this issue. But we need to be proactive to do this. We need to sell the idea to senior editors. -- TerryE (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

New RFC bot feature: forced timestamps
This feature allows for formal RFCs such as Requests for comment/Biographies of living persons to be listed without hassle. The syntax is. rfctag-alt is a variant of rfctag that is invisible (which I recommend using only in limited circumstances). "xxx" is your typical rfctag category abbreviation, and as usual, you can use as many as you want. (that's FIVE tildes) forces the bot to use that timestamp instead of any timestamp mentioned later in the page. This way, the bot does not get lost trying to look for a timestamp. harej 04:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been meaning to ask the obvious question: Would five tildes work for any normal RfC?  That is, the bot really is just looking for the timestamp, not a named signature, right?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The bot looks only for a timestamp, formatted XX:XX, XX Month XXXX (UTC) (which is what you get when signing with 4 or 5 tildes). Signing with a name is still a good thing because it leaves people accountable for their comments, though I suppose only providing the timestamp would allow people to edit the comment. harej  04:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just left a comment on harej's talk page discussing this in detail, but my recommendation is:
 * The time= is also allowed for the rfctag.
 * The bot currently sometime reformats the rfctab, but I recommend that it should always rewrite the tag to add the time parameter. This makes identifying and tracking multiple RfCs on the same page a lot easier.
 * The bot also adds a new <tt> </tt>tag immediately before the DTS of the requesting editor.  This transclusion generates an end of RfC marker so that the editors involved in the discussion know exactly what text will be included in the RfC summary. -- TerryE (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring an RfC
I've recently had a discussion with a couple of editors who had changed the language of an RfC to correct what each saw as inaccuracies in it. I warned both that doing so is a violation of WP:TPO. An RfC is written by a particular editor, and signed by that editor, so changing the RfC should be covered by the same guidelines as any other editor's comment. I believe our guidelines already imply this, but I would like to add language to WP:RFC to make this more overt. Before doing so, I wanted to know if I was mistaken in this assumption or if anyone objected to such wording. --  At am a  頭 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that it's a bit more complicated than that. Some RfCs are written by a single editor; others are explicitly written by committees.  Even when an RfC question is written by a single editor, Wikipedia is not best served by an inaccurate or highly POVish question or summary.  A one-size-fits-all rule isn't going to be ideal.
 * When editors can't agree upon the phrasing, one option is to use the format of Inbrief, which allows side-by-side comparisons of points for and against. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, and perhaps that would be a good point to make as well. Still, the fact that an RfC is supposed to be signed is what leads me to say that others should not refactor. I'm specifically talking about RfCs on talk pages, rather than RfC/U, although it would probably apply there as well. --  At am a  頭 21:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have bad experiences of RfCs being used as a tactical tool. I don't want to discuss the RfCs themselves, but I would like to expand on this issue of how the interest parties fairly appeal or challenge what they view as a POV RfC.


 * An editor (who is skilled at manipulating Wikipedia processes) when in a dispute with other editors, can post a pre-emptive RfC without first consulting other editors to frame a neutral wording, but instead frame the wording in such a way that an RfC reviewer (one who doesn't read through the detailed discussions and supporting evidence) will then read the issue and comment "of course the answer is X" enforcing the posting editor's POV, and allowing the claim "I am supported by the independent reviewer(s)". The net effect of this tactic is to act as indictment and sentencing without the right of reply.  This is especially true when editors are in different continents, in that editor A can go break off for the day, B can then file the RfC and A can come back 24hrs later to discover the POV RfC and a couple of supporting comments against him.  I know that the instructions say that the RfC must be neutral, but on a cursory scan I would think that significantly less than half are.


 * Given that most disputes involve two parties, and that a non-trivial issue that needs RfC might have been building over days or weeks and be supported by thousands of words of discussion and references, wouldn't it be quite simple to allow a simple procedure which acknowledges the intrinsic adversarial nature of such disputes yet avoid involving any "A said, B said" arbitration in the process administration, for example:
 * The posting editor states a summary of his or her view of the RfC (capped say to a fixed word limit).
 * The posting editor must post a warning that the RfC has been issued on the relevant User talk page(s). (Many experienced users have email notification enable for their talk page but not their watch list.)
 * The other party (or rarely parties) then have the option to post a counter summary, say within X hrs (say 48 hrs) with an rfctag response tag.
 * The RFC bot will log any initial creation of the rfctag, but it then queues the request for X hrs and after this time it verifies the current existence of rfctag and copies the rcftagged content (including any response) to the appropriate RfC noticeboard.
 * This 48hr cooling off period would also allow the editors to resolve the issue on the talk page and remove the tag in the case of trivial or premature reference to RfC. It also means that any reviewers will see the essence of both viewpoints when the request is posted to the noticeboard and before starting to frame their judgement.


 * If you feel that this suggestion has merit, then I would be willing to assist in proposing a suitable set of changes or working to support this team. (I am reasonably expert in Perl/PHP/Python/C++ coding). Thanks -- TerryE (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While I think this is a thoughtful and creative solution, I firmly oppose any mandatory "cooling off period". Most RfCs aren't that highly contentious, most delays don't serve Wikipedia, and most 'opposing' editors find very effective ways of communicating their views.  Also, initial descriptions can be revised at any time, and editors who respond quickly can be invited to reconsider or discuss their views.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your rapid response. I've just came across Requests for comment/Content dispute resolution which doesn't seem to touch on this issue  --  it's difficult to scan the Archives when 90% of the talk page posts are misfiled/malformed RfCs. -- My counter Q is how do editors effectively respond when they feel that they are in this situation ?  The current notice system is accusative, in that  have to raise a complaint against the editor concerned in some sense "proving misdeed", but most admins understandably see arbitration on RfC procedural issues as outside their scope, and I am also very reluctant to go down that route as this heightens any adversarial element.


 * As you state above refactoring is a no-no, well what about the manual insertion of a codicil on the automated section of the noticeboard, or even the introduction of an optional rfctag response where editors can at serve notice that they think that the RfC is POV and why? I just want a system where
 * the majority of the editors on a page can fairly frame their view of an issue before being judged on an issue that they at least recognise;
 * they can work within a process but one which gives the defending party some reasonable right of appeal against the accusation.
 * if they challenge the basis of the comments after they've been made on these ground, then they can't be accused of not cooperating with the RfC process.
 * It seems to me that today that just isn't true. OK, I have to agree that 90+% of RfCs don't fall into this category, but it's that few percent that are the difficult ones.  I need think some more about this.  :(  -- TerryE (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have never said that editing or refactoring an RfC question is prohibited: it is not prohibited, and I have done it (e.g., ).  It can, in some instances, be not just acceptable and non-controversial but even welcomed by all concerned.
 * Editing an RfC question can also be done in a disastrous, dispute-escalating, nightmare-creating way: This would be unacceptable.  For example, changing an RfC question so that it ends up asking a different question -- one that you personally think is more germane, perhaps -- is not generally accepted.  You have to let the other editors ask their questions, even if you think their questions are silly.
 * The most obvious line of defense against leading questions is simply to respond with your own comments. If your response helps the next editor see that things are a bit more complicated than the question initially indicates, then so much the better.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add, that what you did in the diff you presented above was just fine. There was no refactoring or other editing of Hammersoft's original RfC message. You just added something to it, and signed it as your own words. My original point was that if you had altered the text that Hammersoft had originally written, that you would have been in violation of WP:TPO. Some people get the impression that an RfC is "special" in some way, and that the initial RfC statement can be modified by anyone who wants to "fix" it. We don't allow people to "fix" other editors' statements, in RfC or anywhere else, except for very specific exceptions as outlined by the talk page guidelines. --  At am a  頭 21:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Objections
So... Since nobody objected to the idea that RfCs are subject to TPO like any other discussion, I added the reminder, and was reverted with the explanation that the matter is being discussed. But I see no discussion about that point, at least no objection to it. So if anyone does object to it, can we have the D from BRD? --  At am a  頭 21:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have already objected to what you wrote, which says "Do not change others' comments, including the initial statement."
 * First of all, I gave an example of the initial statement being changed, and you approved of it.  Since you approved it, why are you now explicitly and absolutely prohibiting it?
 * Secondly, WP:TPO explicitly permits changes to other people's signed comments in some instances, so the text added misrepresents the policy that it names.
 * Thirdly, I see no value to saying what is actually true, which is "Content RfCs usually happen on a talk page. All the normal rules for talk pages apply to anything, including RfCs, that happen on a talk page."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A response to your objections: First, you didn't alter the text written by the original person. You added extra text, with your own signature, creating a new comment, not modifying another editor's comment. That's completely different. Second, of course TPO permits changes in some instances, it's not a blanket ban on refactoring, but the exceptions are few; linking to TPO clarifies what is and isn't allowed (which is why I did so). I don't object to modifying the text to clarify that, but reverting all of the text completely is unhelpful. Third, there is value when I come across editors edit-warring to change a third editor's comments in an RfC and I see that the page here doesn't mention that you cannot do so, by being proactive and pointing this out on the page here we avoid problems like that. --  At am a  頭 09:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your text said, "Do not change...the initial statement." I changed -- to the point of completely replacing -- the initial statement, and you approved of my change.  No inexperienced editor who read your text would believe that it is "completely different".
 * Your text did not say, "Go read TPO, because I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that." It said, "Do not change others' comments, including the initial statement" -- full stop, no exceptions, ever.  If we post a rule here that is more than normally restrictive, people will (reasonably) believe that we deliberately intended a more restrictive rule to apply to all RfCs.
 * Have you actually seen editors changing the responses by outside/uninvolved editors to an RfC? I've never seen, e.g., "* Support This source meets WP:V" changed to "* Oppose This source is lousy," but if it happened, I think it's exactly the kind of simple vandalism that any admin could trivially handle.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about changing the responses to an RfC (that is more of an obvious form of vandalism, clearly). I'm talking about changing the original statement posted by the editor who created an RfC. What you did in your diff was nothing of the sort. I don't know how we're not on the same page here; adding information to the lead of an RfC, clearly separating your text from another editor's text, that is perfectly fine. You did not "completely replace" the initial statement, to do so would be to remove the original statement and put your own in its place, but you left the original text intact. I just want to make it clear that you cannot alter what another editor is saying except in some very restricted circumstances. I have seen this happen, and the editors who did so did not realize that the initial statement given in an RfC is protected like every other talk page comment. Do you disagree with that?


 * Sure, my original text was flawed. I could have, and in fact should have elaborated somewhat so that it didn't seem more strict than what is already at TPO. Would you object to an addition that isn't as misleading as my initial attempt, or do you feel that any mention of refactoring others' statements in an RfC does more harm than good? --  At am a  頭 04:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that the change I made did, in fact, remove the other editor's question entirely from the subject RfC page? My change removed 100% of the editor's question from Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but that is as a result of the bot functionality, not because you deleted the actual originating editor's comment. The summary on the RfC is there as a sweetener to bring commenting editors to the page.  I know (because I've done it myself) that, when you've become emotionally involved with a dispute which is going to RfC, it is very easy to go into too much detail here.  Having an experienced editor add a synopsis of the issue could improve the quality of responses.  Any commenting editors will always read the involved editors comments when they visit the page.  So IMHO the practice of allowing an independent commenting editor to add a synopsis is a good idea.  -- TerryE (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, removing a question from the subject RfC page is okay. There's no policy or guideline being breached there, as far as I know. It's the altering or removal of a signed comment, in opposition of TPO, that is a problem. If you had removed that editor's question from the actual talk page, or you had altered their comment to reflect the summary that you wanted, that would be changing another editor's comment (putting "words in their mouth"... or "text in their fingers" maybe).


 * Often on a discussion page an editor will create a topic with a biased subject, such as "BLP being horribly violated" or "TerryE is a spammer". In the course of that discussion, another editor will change the subject to something less prejudicial, like "BLP concerns" or "TerryE's edits". That's common and acceptable, see "Section headings: at WP:TPO. In an RfC the opening statement works in much the same way as a topic header, in that it instigates and guides the discussion that follows it, more so than the opening statement of other discussions on a talk page (partially because the bot will put that statement on the RfC page that guides people to the discussion). That gives other editors an incentive to refactor the initial statement, rather than replying to it or substituting a different statement. They forget about TPO or don't think that it applies. That's the mistake I was hoping to address. --  At am a  頭 19:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The initial statement is the text that appears (1) immediately after the Rfctag template on the talk page and (2) on the subject matter page.
 * I do not think an inexperienced editor would consider entirely replacing "his" initial statement with "my" initial statement, so that his statement is no longer the initial statement, is anything other than "changing the initial statement" -- even if I preserve "his" statement as a regular comment. The act of demoting someone else's initial statement is "changing the initial statement", and the proposed text categorically bans that behavior.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please forget the proposed text. You're acting like I'm trying to bludgeon it onto the page, I'm not. I'm trying to propose a way to state that TPO applies to the initial RfC statement. You're hung up on what I had originally proposed, but I'm not tied to that, it was just a suggestion. What about this:


 * Statements and questions presented in an RfC are subject to the talk page guidelines like any discussion. Do not alter the text of others' comments, including the initial statement, aside from what is allowed at WP:TPO.


 * I'm hoping that this addresses your concerns. --  At am a  頭 20:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)