Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 18

Volume problems
Talk:Malassezia is the first of four RFCs on that page, all opened by the same person in a single edit. The bot can't handle that (in a single edit), and opening multiple RFCs (no matter how many edits) usually makes people angry, especially if all of the RFCs are about questions that have been asked and answered in multiple discussions already, but nobody agreed with me, so I'm starting a pile of RFCs in the hope that one of them will produce the outcome I want. This wasn't a problem back in the day, but we're seeing it several times a year now.

In January, @SMcCandlish added "It is rarely appropriate for a user to have more than one RfC open at a time. If any RfC that you started has not yet been closed, please do not start another one." This has been reverted. I'd like to see something like this added. I like the "please do not" feel, and I think that is preferable to an absolute ban. However, I think this restriction is too narrow. Maybe you can have a total of three open RFCs at a time? Or maybe you can open an unlimited number overall, but only one or two RFCs on any given subject?

The problems to be solved are:


 * Wasting the community's time and energy on unnecessary duplicates
 * Avoiding contradictory results (what if my RFC at the article's talk page says "yes", but my RFC at the WikiProject's page says "no"?)
 * Fair allocation of community's time and energy to RFCs by many editors, rather than having one or two get an unfair amount of attention (if I open 10 RFCs, and 10 editors each open one RFC, then I'm just 9% of the editors opening RFCs but I'm taking up 50% of the room.)
 * Preventing survey fatigue

Can we move forward on this, with at least a suggestion that it's a bad idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The "problems" are not that serious: there is only  entry in relation to Talk:Malassezia in respective category and there is only one discussion per RfC - no duplicates. Any limitations are counterproductive and detriment for the purposes of WP:DISPUTE resolution to say nothing of that they would be abused and mishandled. The more RfC per every proposal = the better. I'm going to fix malfunctioned RfC later so there will be more entries.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 22:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. Tell me where your four RFCs are on that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are all problems worth addressing (though not necessarily problems evidenced in the example batch of RfCs), but limiting the number of simultaneously open RfCs encylopedia-wide doesn't directly address any of them.
 * Wasting the community's time on duplicate RfCs would be addressed by a rule like you can't open two requests for comments on the same thing (I mean requests for the same comments, not just the same broad topic) in a 6 month period.
 * Avoiding contradictory results would be addressed by a rule like you can't have two RfCs that overlap (where the result of one would affect the result of another) open at the same time.
 * Fair allocation of commenter attention would be addressed by a rule like you can't open more than 12 RfCs per year. One could choose to take his limit all in January or get constant low-level attention all year.
 * Survey fatigue is addressed somewhat by the above, but could also be addressed by a tighter per-page limit since some commenters will be followers of the particular page.
 * Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's simply redundant to introduce any limitations here. Except of perceived "issues" there is none real actually. Whole series of policies already deal with repeated and persistent attempts to change obviously stable, comprehensive WP:CONSENSUS/WP:SILENCE. I strongly oppose imposing any limitations here or elsewhere on the dispute-resolution process. I suspect that  is trying to criminalize such process in order to hinder other's progress and have a convenient excuse to avoid cooperating in articles' building efforts. --  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 08:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's so much bad-faith assumption in that post that in and of itself it's worthyq of a block or topic ban.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The "problems" are virtually non-existent: there is only entry There is indeed only one entry: but there should have been four - one for each of the tags on the page, they were all added by yourself in. I'm going to fix malfunctioned RfC later so there will be more entries - I see no evidence of you doing that. It has taken me over two hours to fix the page so that all four are listed at WP:RFC/SCI and WP:RFC/PROJ - and this is the second time in a few days that I've had to sort out a mess like that, the first being at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory which had no less than six RfCs started simultaneously, see. I didn't expect that the bot would fail so miserably - there is a warning at WP:RFC (If there are two tags on the same page that both lack the rfcid parameter, Legobot will assign the same value to both, with the result that only the lowest one of the page will be publicised; moreover, the incoming link will lead to the higher RfC question, which will cause confusion.). Maybe I should typeset it using big red letters. the problem of only one of the four being listed is not due to one user opening more than one RfC, it's that one page had more than one RfC that hadn't been visited by Legobot. Legobot has a bug in that if it encounters two or more tags on the same page that all lack a rfcid parameter, it will assign the same rfcid value to all of them, as demonstrated by. This is a known bug, and since it has a known workaround (Each tag should also be added in a separate edit, with a delay between each edit to let the bot assign an id number to the first before attempting to start a second), Legoktm is unwilling to write a fix for that bug. if you want to start four separate RFCs on the same page, then you need to make four separate edits - not just four separate edits, but four separate edits with Legobot visiting the page between any two of them. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would, perhaps obviously, support reinstating the wording I originally used, or something very similar to it: "It is rarely appropriate for a user to have more than one RfC open at a time. If any RfC that you started has not yet been closed, please do not start another one."  It could perhaps be moderated to something more like: "It is rarely appropriate for a user to have more than one RfC open at a time in the same topic area. If the RfC that you started has not yet been closed, please do not start another one."  It wasn't really meant to imply that you shouldn't start an RfC about DUE weight in coverage of ancient writers' views of the Celts versus views of modern scholarship, if two weeks ago you already opened an RfC about infobox parameters pertaining to cattle breeds and that RfC hasn't closed.  :-)  But we  have an actual problem with both too much of an WP:ANRFC backlog (always), and PoV pushers with poor collaboration and communication skills opening RfC after RfC after RfC to try to WP:WIN by tiring out their opposition and, usually, using non-neutral wording in the half-assed RfCs to try to sway random-editor opinion in their direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This basically would be used to prevent everyone from peacefully discussing different issues in separate RfCs and otherwise moving discussions forward. Makes no sense.-- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 12:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be ignoring the real disruption that this sort of gaming the system causes. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to enlighten me. I also don't get why not to fix bots instead of rules.-- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 18:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with the bot is minor: if you want to start four separate RFCs on the same page, then you need to make four separate edits.  The instructions are on this page at Requests for comment.
 * The social and community problems of an editor starting multiple RFCs cannot be fixed by changing the bot. I'm more concerned about the social and community problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't expect that the bot would fail so miserably. Nobody was harmed at least. -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 20:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some points in relation to various comments above.
 * @Redrose64, if you think that big red letters would save you that much work, then I've got no objection. It's kinder than the blink tags I've considered over at External links, where people still keep asking about how to format citations.  Maybe something like If you start more than one RFC on the same page at the same time, the bot will only list one of them. would get the point across?  And perhaps we should add "If you start more than one RFC at a time, any editor is allowed to remove unlisted RFCs" to get the rest cleared.  You'll still have the problem that Nobody reads the directions, but it might eventually help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well thanks. The "later" doesn't mean "right now". Nothing warranted speedy fix here. I'm the only one who suffered. I was just going to withdraw malfunctioned RfC. Thanks anyway.-- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 14:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Redrose64: If you want to make this requirement more salient, I suggest something in bold face, not necessarily red, in the basic instruction section ("Request comment on articles ...") that says something like, "If you're going to put multiple RfC discussions on the same page, see [Multiple RfCs on One Page section]". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But: should we be emphasizing the instructions for how to do something, if we think people probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's one of the arguments against teaching kids about contraception (which, to be clear, is a terrible argument). This particular subthread is about how to stop people from screwing up Legobot and causing User:Redrose64 two hours of work.  Elsewhere in this section, we discuss whether it's good for one person to have multiple RfCs going at the same time.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that section should direct one into a different section in case of Multiple RfC. The wording should be as NEUTRAL as it possible. Feel free to make a proposal. --  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: Further drama relating to this has spilled over at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: The exact same kind of "firehose of redundant RfCs" problem (with concomitant WP:BLUDGEONing) is also ongoing presently at Talk:Goths, where there are four open RfCs on essentially the same thing, two opened by the same person (generally in a way that seems designed to skirt the others from coming to consensus). I procedurally closed one as premature but am already getting yelled at for it by the opener of it, who wants to declare the RfCs above it "not workable" and not "functioning", despite no other editors appearing to feel that way about it. This has a WP:WINNING feel to it, and it needs to stop. Consider this a request for intervention by uninvolved editors to help these RfCs to procede to conclusions, and uninvolved admins to prevent any further disruption, lest this spawn another T-ban thread at ANI. WhatamIdoing is spot-on in wanting to focus on "the social and community problems", not bot-handling trivia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a growing problem in the Project, perhaps stemming from a legalistic mindset that sees RfCs as a way of getting a binding "judgement" (often a WP:LOCALCON-ish anti-WP:PAG gambit) than the instigators hope can be used to their advantage. RSN used to be a useful noticeboard, but seems to have become pretty much a pissing contest between people launching RfCs to get opposition sources deprecated and listed as WP:RSP, for example. I'm not sure what the solution is, but limiting the number of RfCs an editor can concurrently launch would be a step in the right direction. Alexbrn (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Talk:Goths ones were at least started at well-separated intervals, and so none of the problems seen at either Talk:Malassezia or Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory were caused. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But all of the social problems are visible in these discussions. I think that @Alexbrn is on to something:  the more you see an RFC as a binding judgement, the more you will want to have unnecessary RFCs, and the more you feel you must "win" them at any cost.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the key uses of an RfC is to resolve a dispute. If RfCs aren't binding judgments, then they can't serve that purpose.  In recent practice, if not in theory, RfCs have become not a way, but Wikipedia's only way, to terminate intractable content disputes.  I think that RfCs are a bad way to resolve such disputes, but all the other ways are worse... so please, let's not decide that RfCs aren't binding.—S Marshall T/C 09:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem at WP:RS/N is that they are apparently being used pre-emptively, not to settle (running) disputes. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't it better to reach consensus on the sources before the running disputes emerge?—S Marshall T/C 10:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's what it achieved, maybe. But in practice the consensus tends to be meaningless (some variant of "it depends"), or obvious without an RfC, or about sources which don't emerge. And sometimes even a "good" decision hardly dampens the drama, witness WP:DAILYMAIL permathread. It would be better if editors came to understand policy rather than aim at a legalistic, checkbox approach to things. Alexbrn (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One thing to remember is that WP:Consensus can change... so at best, an RFC can only temporarily resolve a dispute... the dispute can re-spark (for example, if new evidence emerges that was not considered in the RFC). The consensus established in one RFC only lasts until a new RFC assesses whether consensus has (or has not) changed.  We also need to remember that an RFC might NOT resolve a dispute (“no consensus”). This does not make RFCs useless... they CAN resolve disputes... they just don’t resolve every dispute. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course consensus may change, but so should the circumstances that previously led to the old one. -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 21:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with this one here. I already told folks here that any attempts to criminalize RfC process will backfire with a disaster. -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 21:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's wildly inaccurate to say that anyone is "is criminalizing the RfC process". I hope you will consider re-reading this discussion with more care, to understand the nuances of what our fellow editors are saying.  It is certainly true that the community can revisit decisions it has made in the past.  The question is after how long, and there isn't a simple answer.  Seeking to repeat a discussion until the outcome changes usually constitutes disruptive behaviour; but repeating a discussion when there's new evidence, such as some important new source that has emerged, is appropriate and helpful.  Experienced Wikipedians are rather good at telling which is which.—S Marshall T/C 01:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly... there are very few absolutes on WP. There are LOTS of nuances. This is why we change policies very SLOWLY... because there are often nuances that we will overlook if we act in haste. Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was in fact me, not User:SMcCandlish, who proposed that wording, in Special:Permalink/1002514760. I remain of the opinion that it's a good idea.—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I have to admit that 4 RfC was a bit of overkill here so I took down the biggest one for now.-- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Same problem, different user
Just to state, this problem is not isolated to a single user. See Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, where another user created six RfCs back-to-back, which also caused problems with the bot & dominated the page with RfCs. I agree with Alexbrn who earlier stated:
 * This seems to be a growing problem in the Project, perhaps stemming from a legalistic mindset that sees RfCs as a way of getting a binding "judgement"

We need to make it clear that RfCs should be used only when normal discussions have reached an impasse, and not the go-to solution for trying to legalistically push a specific result. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't read all threads in full. It appears that all RfC out there are listed under different topics. There is no WP:NODEADLINE in such discussions until WP:CONSENSUS is established, so I see no VERY SERIOUS problem there. Except of a bit of clutter.
 * Yeah, it's called WP:CONSENSUS, which the most of the time is binding and what the RfC proceedings are created for. You can't twist the rules if you don't like something. I'm glad that is on his way to learn basic rules here.--  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 19:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In point of fact you are a poster child for the dark side of RfCs, launching 4 simultaneously trying to perform an end-run round the WP:PAGs to try and get some poorly-sourced medical content into Wikipedia. Result: a lot of wasted time from multiple editors with better things to do. Alexbrn (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, relatively to WP:PAG I overlooked the major problem there. It wasn't about rules at all but about the way they are applied. On the rest, well, that's not the case anymore. You are free to go and checkout. -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 20:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't read all threads in full.
 * That seems obvious. You don't understand the problem, yet dismiss it anyway. Also your condescending You can't twist the rules if you don't like something is noted, and right back at you. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps some of things might not have been discussed very thoroughly before out there, but doesn't make me immediately angry. I would agree to a STRONG advice to settle down things in  discussion first, but no more than that. Otherwise it will escalate into abusive usage very quickly.--  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 21:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Otherwise it will escalate into abusive usage very quickly.
 * And that's why I support changing the wording of the RfC policy to limit how many RfCs a single user can open at a time. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that RfC aren't abused, but the limitations on the RfC usage - will. Feel the difference. Stop trying to criminalize a basic dispute resolution process. You didn't show us conclusively how someone was hurt significantly by a bunch of RfC (except of bot probably. Poor thing works hard to keep up with pace). -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the "actual harm" defense, when it's clear there's no other argument that holds up. I'm opposed to WP:PROCESS just for the sake of process, when people should just talk to each other. None of those RfCs needed to exist, they were just bludgeoning the other users with process instead of doing what the user should've done in the first place: propose changes and talk it out.
 * I've made my points, and I'm not going to be responding to you further. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I personally used RfC for. WP:STONEWALLing or keep those who just don't want to WP:LISTEN or able to follow WP:TALKDONTREVERT policy - away. To say nothing of those who aren't genuinely interested in discussed matters. --  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 14:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you're misusing the RfC process. They should be a last resort not your go-to for forcing a decision when others disagree. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what prescribe by WP:DR. There is no option except of opening RfC if reverters avoid engaging in discussion.
 * Nobody is forced. You shouldn't modify RfC advice on a mere pretext of your disagreement with possible outcome. -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 16:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The reverters did not avoid engaging in discussion. That's obvious from the (multiple) talk pages.  I can agree that they "avoided agreeing with you" or "avoided letting you add the content you want to add". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, @HandThatFeeds. I wonder if you have an opinion on whether it's worse to open several RFCs on the same page vs the same number of RFCs on separate pages.  If I'm going to start six RFCs this week, would you be more irritated if I started six RFCs on one page, or one RFC on each of six (related) pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Six on a single page is definitely worse. It's hard to justify throwing that many at a single page, because it implies that all six of those issues are facing intractable disagreement at the same time. That seems highly unlikely.
 * Six on different pages is more complex, and the central question is "are all these pages related?" If so, it sounds more like a person trying to force their own view on a topic, rather than solving issues relating to individual pages. If the pages are unrelated, knock yourself out (though you're probably spreading yourself too thin trying to deal with six concurrent RfCs anyway). When the pages are related, ask if you really need different RfCs on each one, or if they're all related to a central issue. For the latter, I'd suggest opening a single RfC on the most relevant page, and then posting notices on the others. Make sure the RfC participants are aware that this finding could impact the other related pages (assuming that's the case).
 * Which brings me to my final point: most likely those six RfCs don't need to be RfCs. The problem I brought in this subsection is a good illustration. All of the RfCs that were filed on that page have basically hit WP:SNOW status; either they were universally accepted changes, or universally rejected ones. There was no point to filing RfCs when a simple discussion would've sufficed. Using RfC for these issues was just bludgeoning people with process to try and force on user's preferred change onto a page. I'd rather see people just talk it out instead of this needless formality. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with you, @HandThatFeeds. We do occasionally see one (or sometimes, two related) RFCs, from someone who just didn't know how else to get anyone to reply to a question.  But mostly, when there are an excessive number of RFCs, it's either because you told me no but I didn't want to hear that, or because I want to force my view on a topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To respond to various "seeing RfCs as 'binding judgments comments above: It is not possible for RfCs or anything else to be binding judgments because WP:Consensus can change. Even ArbCom decisions can be appealed (repeatedly, over time, unlike those of a supreme court).  If the theory given above, that this "RfC firehosing" problem stems from misinterpretation of RfCs as "binding judgments" to seek and win like civil lawsuits, then this is actually a form of WP:CIR failure, and needs to be correctively addressed both in WP:RFC (perhaps also at WP:CONSENSUS), and directly with the individuals pursuing such quixotic behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's part of the problem, yes. People see a process for getting a "final" decision and so they bludgeon the page with RfCs to try and legalistically get their preferred version as consensus. See above, where User:Alexander_Davronov states That's what I personally used RfC for. RfC are good at preventing WP:STONEWALLing.... Apparently there's a perception that if people disagree with your change, going straight to an RfC is how to bulldoze through that disagreement. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * NOTE: — this shouldn't interpreted more broader than in the context of the  I was talking about. See full reply here: .--  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 17:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, refrain from drawing broad conclusions or intentions from my single reply. Assume WP:GOOD FAITH. Otherwise you potentially falsely misrepresent me and others here.-- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 17:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm drawing from your entire argument, that particular line was just emblematic of the problem. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See also this User_talk:Alexander_Davronov thread, which is kind of WP:NOTGETTINGIT on steroids, like "I'm not getting it, and to hell with you try to get me to get it". Cf. also this weird and hostile prevarication, and its pretense that other editors' in put must be "solicited" to be valid at this editor's talk page. WTF? The common thread I'm seeing here these "firehose a bunch of RfCs until I WP:WIN" cases is a general problem covered at WP:CAPITULATE, a belief that if you just argue long and hard enough, WP's other editors will eventually just cave in and do things your way. I'm not sure what the solution is. My normal go-to is "impose a reasonable-length topic ban" but maybe there are other more effective approaches. Just taking time to explain (again) in user talk is clearly not working. Lots of editors objecting to the RfC firehosing, the bludgeoning, the policy-ignorant arguments, is clearly not working.
 * A TBAN is a potential outcome in that instance, but since this editor's use of the RFC process is not unique, the process apparently needs a little more self-defense built into it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can only comment based on what was witnessed at Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory where a certain editor created 6 RfCs in quick succession - it was amusing, but barmy. The frustration that led this editor to list so many RfCs was clearly down to the standard BRD method of changing/developing content not working for them. They were convinced that their point of view had merit and that other editors involved in the various discussions that had taken place there were wrong - something 6 RfCs would surely set straight. Acous<b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 11:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was the editor. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * so you were, guess it was worth a shot? <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 21:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I got pinged by, who mentioned it on the article talkpage. One of the RfC's has already set everything straight, which is good. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Another example
Here's another example of a single editor with an unusually high number of RFCs open. User:Snooganssnoogans has these RFCs open:
 * Talk:Mitt Romney
 * Talk:Thomas McInerney
 * Talk:Los Angeles Police Department
 * Talk:Arthur Laffer – User:Deacon Vorbis, it looks like you removed that RFC tag per WP:RFCBEFORE?
 * Talk:Ron DeSantis

Snooganssnoogans, we're finding that some editors open a disproportionate share of RFCs. With five RFCs going, you're definitely on the high side. Do you have any idea why you use the RFC process so much more than most? What would happen to you if the community imposed a rule that said (for example) no individual editor could have more than two RFCs open at a time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * A prohibition or severe curtailment of the number of RFCs that any individual editor can start would be a massive boon to editors that block content for spurious reasons and who abuse other Wikipedia policies to deadlock content so it favors the status quo. For example, the RFC on the Mitt Romney was started after a single editor kept blocking content for poor reasons (while citing BRD). Nothing short of a RFC was likely to lead to the inclusion of the content (the RFC ended with a unanimous consensus). The RFC process is extremely effective in curtailing those kinds of abuses, which is why I make use of them on highly contentious pages where one or two editors block content and refuse to compromise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder though, whether you needed to be the editor to personally start all of the RFCs. Maybe a "Should someone start an RFC?" discussion could have led to a less "expensive" resolution in some cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I frequently disagree with Snoogan's content views but I wouldn't want to see a specific limit on the number of RfCs an editor could have open. I do think it would be better if we had some expectation that a significant level of discussion should occur before resorting to a RfC.  This is a complaint I've had with Snoogan's use of RfC's in the past.  I'm going to use the DeSantis RfC as an example [].  (Note- I was not part of this topic and may have missed parts of this particular example).  It appears that content was added then reverted.  This resulted in a single two edit exchange then the RfC was started [].  I feel like a RfC shouldn't be the first step after a revert but should be used only after significant talk page discussion first.  If nothing else this is likely to result in a better question. Springee (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think bringing that Ron DeSantis RFC into this discussion about opening multiple RFC's is going off topic. You're essentially just shoving a content dispute you're unhappy with into this discussion. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 06:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was one of the examples listed at the top of this section. I'm not involved with the topic and honestly didn't even read what the dispute was about.  I noted it only because it was an example were there was basically no two way discussion prior to the RfC being opened.  Springee (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Principles
It seems to me that we've established these beliefs as being generally held:


 * Don't ever start a second RFC on the same page until the bot has assigned an RFC id number to the first one.
 * In this case, it doesn't matter who starts the second/subsequent RFCs.
 * The main problem here is technical.
 * You probably shouldn't (yourself) start multiple RFCs on the same page at the same time.
 * Two RFCs might be okay, depending on the situation, but having lots of RFCs isn't. I don't think I saw anyone supporting the same editor having three RFCs open on the same page at the same time.  (Does anyone?)
 * This doesn't preclude other people from starting an RFC on that page.
 * The main problem here is social: bludgeoning of process, other editors feeling like their time was wasted, etc.
 * It's bad to have multiple RFCs on the same subject at the same time (even if they're on different pages).
 * If the subject affects multiple pages, then centralize the discussions to a single location.
 * The main problem here is procedural: What if one RFC concludes to do X, and the other concludes to do not-X?

I'm not sure whether there was general agreement about having a large number of totally unrelated RFCs. There was some support for it, so I think that we either agree that it's okay, or we don't have agreement, so it shouldn't be mentioned here. (I'm also not sure that it matters, because nobody only one editor seems to do that.)

Does that sound about right to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I was pinged and I think all of these suggestions are good. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think these are excellent suggestions. The most recent RFC-mageddon I have encountered involved 6 being opened at once, in good faith, but really it was silly move, an attempt to negate the usual BRD process. I think generally not opening anymore than two RFC's at a time is a good idea, opening more than that at once is disruptive it's kind of gaming wikipedia's usual BRD process - I think it is akin to bludgeoning the process - simply bludgeoning talk page with RFC's. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 23:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with all that. Good job.
 * I'm still a little unsure that 3 RfCs a month apart is better than 3 nonoverlapping RfCs all at once followed by 3 months of silence (i.e. the volume problem is concurrence, not just rate), but there seems to be a lot of belief that it is, so I'll acquiesce to that one. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that everyone would draw the line at three non-overlapping RFCs. Also, there is probably a difference between starting three on the same day, and starting one every 14 days (which, if neither of the first two resolve quickly, would result in having three RFCs open at least briefly). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * FWIW I personally try to stick to a one-RFC-at-a-time rule, meaning if I launch one RfC on any page (meaning a real, tagged, indexed RfC, not just a proposal), I won't start a second one anywhere until that first one is delisted. (So usually that's one RfC per month from me.) I think it's really presumptuous for me as one editor to list multiple RFCs on the index at the same time. Like I should limit how much of other's people's time I ask for. I think one RfC per editor at a time is a good place to draw the line but YMMV. Levivich harass/hound 00:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC subsections
As many of you know, most RFCs are taking a standard format... we start with a statement outlining a proposed change (sometimes multiple choice)... then a section for !votes (sometimes split into “Support” and “Opposed”) and finally a section for “Discussion”.

This is all well and good, and works well when there is only one RFC on an individual talk page. But this standard format is NOT helpful when there are multiple RFCs on the same talk page. When a talk page has multiple RFCs - ALL with the SAME “Support”, “Oppose”, “Discussion” sub-headings, it is often very difficult to figure out WHICH RFC a comment is for (especially when scanning recent edits on one’s watchlist).

Could we encourage editors to add more info to the sub-headings (say: “Support (RFC option)” or “Discuss (RFC issue)” where the parenthetical tells others WHICH RFC the edit is for? Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Already covered with wider scope at WP:TALKNEW. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, but no one seems to be following those instructions when it comes to RFCs. So perhaps we should add something here to reinforce it. Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm against subsections within RfCs. To me, the RfC should itself be a subsection, the parent section being the discussion whose non-resolution meant that a RfC was necessary. If there is no parent section, this means that WP:RFCBEFORE was not observed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the solution to editors' ignorance about guidelines, which largely rresults from having too much of them, is not to create more of them, particularly redundantly. The solution is to JUSTFIXIT with clear and meaningful edit summaries and let those editors see you doing it (optionally with UTP notes to the editors who create the duplicate headings). I see only one editor doing that regularly and there should be many more doing it regularly. As for me, I'm no longer heavily involved/invested in this project and didn't do it regularly when I was. I was not entirely comfortable being in such a tiny minority on the issue, and I asked myself, "Who am I to enforce this when almost nobody else cares about it?" That's on me.Disagree with Redrose64, I think a separate "Survey" section is very helpful in assessing consensus (and such an RfC can still be subordinate to a parent discussion, making that a separate and independent issue). 68.97.37.21 (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it me that is ? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 68.97, the problem with "a separate "Survey" section is very helpful in assessing consensus" is that it turns into "a separate "Survey" section is very helpful in counting and emphasizing votes, even though an RFC is supposed to be a normal, consensus-oriented discussion and not a vote". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I composed a longer response and then decided against it.Understood, I've heard that before. Clearly, a very large fraction of editors disagree, which is why we keep seeing Survey sections. I expect that to continue until Survey sections are explicitly outlawed by explicit community consensus with wide participation. That's a complicated philosophical debate better conducted at the Village Pump than in this thread. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have occasionally wondered, when there are both ===Survey=== and ===Discussion=== sections, whether the closers (if any) read the ===Discussion=== sections, and if they give them the same weight as the convenient ===Survey=== comments.
 * I think that the best format for an RFC depends upon the question. I designed Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices, and it was very long and complex, so obviously I think that's appropriate for some RFCs.  But I have also opened RFCs with zero subsections, just like most editors do, so obviously I think that's appropriate, too.  If anyone is interested in the subject in general, then Requests for comment/Example formatting describes some of the advantages and disadvantages of different formats. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In response to I have occasionally wondered... whether the closers (if any) read the Discussion sections, and if they give them the same weight as the convenient Survey comments. -- Personally, I read them and often find them helpful. I'm rather inconsistent in how much weight I give them because the I find that nature of the "Discussion" sections is very variable. Sometimes there's a lot of thought and careful analysis of sources that's very valuable in deciding how to weight the votes. Other times it's mostly a long back-and-forth between two users who've totally lost patience with each other and when I've finished reading it, I want my ten minutes back. With the RfCs I find hardest to close, sometimes I follow the diffs one by one so I can see how the votes and the discussion sections evolve together -- it does occasionally happen that someone makes a killer point in the discussion that affects every subsequent vote. The discussion section usually gives me context and background to the dispute, an idea of who advocates what position and why, and some clues about whether and to what extent the RfC formulator has extreme views -- or whether the RfC is a response to an extremist arriving in the topic area -- all very helpful to know.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 11:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:TALKNEW does not cover this. That says whole discussions should have unique titles.  E.g. if there's a section on a talk page headed "Lead is too long", you shouldn't create another section/discussion also headed "Lead is too long".  I don't think it's generally a problem for subheadings to have to be read in the context of the superior heading, though we've identified here a specific situation where it is.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason to have unique section headings is because of WP:ACCESS, and the reason applies equally regardless of whether it's a ==Main section== or a ===Subsection===. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are always oversights and minor errors. Just correct the subheadings if you come across cases like this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Blueboar, what makes you think that "most" RFCs have multiple subsections? The last time I counted, which might have been a year or two ago, those were a distinct minority.  (Now if you'd said that "most RFCs posted to a Village Pump page", I'd probably agree with you.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh... perhaps my use of “most” is colored by which pages are on my watchlist. It is certainly the standard on a lot of the policy/guideline pages, and especially at the RS noticeboard (which often has multiple RFCs open at the same time). The point is that, when a talk page has multiple RFCs that DO use this format, it is very difficult to follow who is replying to what.  It would be helpful to have clearer sub-headings. Blueboar (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, @Blueboar, I have to agree with that. The solution to the RSN problem is probably (a) prohibit the WP:RSP pushers from opening an RFC at all until they can prove, with diffs/links and under penalty of having to vote in a hundred AFDs if they're wrong, that there have been at least two difficult disputes over the source they're trying to ban, (b) make them hold those votes on a different page so that RSN can work normally again, and (c) write a proper sample page for how to write these things, instead of linking to an old example.  I suppose that (i.e., "You") could put a new section for that at Requests for comment/Example formatting if you wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that an RfC starter on the reliable sources noticeboard should be forced to "vote in a hundred AFDs if they're wrong" is highly objectionable for multiple reasons:
 * Many editors who start RfCs on the reliable sources noticeboard are not "trying to ban" any source: they are soliciting opinions on the reliability of a source from a broad section of the community. How do you determine if they are "wrong" when they do not even express an opinion in the RfC?
 * To my knowledge, there is no precedent on the English Wikipedia in which an editor who expresses a certain opinion on a noticeboard is penalized by being forced to spend multiple hours making comments in another area of Wikipedia. This is antithetical to the principle that Wikipedia is a volunteer service, and that editors can work in the areas that they wish to work in. I'm sure there have been occasions in which the opinion you expressed in an RfC differs from the result of the RfC. How would you feel if you were penalized in this way for expressing your opinion?
 * If you do not like the perennial sources list, you are not obligated to use it. Likewise, if you do not like certain discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard, you are not obligated to participate in them. Other editors will continue to maintain the list because they find it useful, and other editors will continue to participate in these discussions because they believe their input helps improve the reliability of articles on Wikipedia. —  Newslinger  talk   10:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Newslinger, that was a joke; I'm sorry you didn't think it was funny. On the pointful misunderstandings, I disagree that most (NB:  "most" ≠ "all") editors who start RSP-focused RFCs aren't trying to get the source banned.  However, what I want them to be correct about is "that there have been at least two difficult disputes over the source".  I don't care whether they're correct about whether the source should or shouldn't be banned.  I am pretty confident that when someone shows up at RSN with a source that nobody's ever discussed before that we'll have no difficulty determining that they're wrong about the "at least two difficult disputes over the source" part.
 * You are also incorrect that if I don't like RSP, then I can ignore it. That list, as predicted for many years before its creation, has resulted in mindless removal of sources that are actually reliable in the specific WP:RSCONTEXT.  It has also resulted in thousands of actually-reliable-in-context sources being removed, but the content being left in.  To give two examples:  an editor has cited RSP to say that Daily Mail is not a reliable source for a statement about itself, and another editor has removed a Chinese newspaper, being used to support the title of a Chinese government official, because RSP says it's a bad source, even though the one thing you can expect that newspaper to get absolutely correct is the current title of the Chinese state officials.  Because RSP exists, and because some, usually less experienced, editors apparently cannot be bothered to follow the multiple warnings in RSP against brain-dead citation blanking, then, you're wrong:  all editors are affected by RSP's existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, and I apologize for misunderstanding the "if they're wrong" part. The four combined RfCs on the Daily Mail and Global Times  tabloids establish that it is not enough for an editor to cite the tabloid for a claim; the editor must also establish why the use of the tabloid in that instance is reliable in the context of the claim in light of the tabloid's history of publishing false and fabricated information, as required by WP:BURDEN. WP:ABOUTSELF is a valid argument for inclusion, but it is subject to five restrictions that limit its application. Any disagreements can be discussed on the article talk page or on the noticeboard. What I meant by "If you do not like the perennial sources list, you are not obligated to use it" is that the list is only an index of prior noticeboard discussions, and that you are free to ignore the list and refer only to the discussions themselves. If the list did not exist, linking to the prior noticeboard discussions would have the same effect. The list exists to make it easier for others to check, for instance, whether an editor is cherrypicking only the discussions that support their argument. The perennial sources list has been acclaimed as an effective measure against disinformation, and that is something I feel that the community can be proud of. —  Newslinger   talk   02:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's possible to fight the mindlessness, but why should we have to? Why should a citation to an article in the Daily Mail that says ____ be defaultly, mindlessly, stupidly considered an unreliable source for a sentence in a Wikipedia article that only says "The Daily Mail claimed ____"?  You might argue that it's undue, but surely if the article said ____, then the article is actually reliable – even authoritative – for the fact that the source contained those words.  This is practically Verifiability 101.
 * > If the list did not exist, linking to the prior noticeboard discussions would have the same effect.
 * This is not true. Some of these noticeboard discussions only happened because RSP exists.  Some editors have opened RFCs at RSN because RSP exists.  These editors believed that the community wanted them to attempt to pre-classify every possible news source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And this "deprecation" system too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not related to any replies above, but to the general topic of subsections in RfCs - has anybody noticed ? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Eight section headings for one RFC. That's ...probably not actually a record, unfortunately, but it's probably close. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Since my own RfC is mentioned:
 * I posted the above as what would be my first RfC, even though I have lurked for quite a few years, and (as an IP) asked for the redirect Michael John Graydon Soroka to be created through WP:AFC/R. The reason why I created an RfC is because I would like a precedent (see test cases) on application of WP:REDCAT. I admit that my phrasings and headings are quite convoluted (even if the involvement of two more Michaels are not, involvement of Courland is). I also admit that an RfC is not the best venue to ask, but please understand that no-one replied to my question at WP:VPP, made before the RfC.
 * As for bureaucraticness, I have later edited the RFC to only have two headings, and I later respected its closure by placing the and bottom tags and redirecting prospective readers to my VP listing. Either way, the RfC should be way easier to navigate now.
 * To conclude, I ask that you accept my apologies for wasting your time (by posting on the wrong venue), respect my good intentions and open-heartedness to your advice, and refrain from biting me or mentioning it in a way that embarrasses me (see User:DePlume/Soroka). Be bold, though, to use it to educate future RfC makers. Thanks, DePlume (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC), edited on 06:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC).
 * @DePlume, you didn't waste our time. Writing effective RFCs can be tough, and the first draft isn't always the best.  You're welcome to ask for advice here before you post your next one.  (And I was right:  you definitely didn't set a record, because I wrote one last year that started with nine section headings, and ended with sixteen – and I supposedly know what I'm doing with these things.    ) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's OK, and thank you. I meant my "Since my own RfC…" to who commented on my RfC, calling it a waste of time (I have posted my question to VPP prior without mentioning at the M.J.G.S. RfC that I have done so). I meant my message to them, and I am tagging them so that I am not talking behind their back. DePlume (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC) (updated on 05:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC))
 * I stand by my comment. It is a waste of time to go straight for a full-blown formal RfC (something which can last for thirty days and will trigger messages to the user talk pages of many people) when you could have easily resolved it by a simple question at one of the many help boards that we provide. RfC is not for trivial matters of obtaining help, it is for resolving those difficult issues that are becoming tense or deadlocked. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand and apologise. I just hope that there would a more gentle way to put it. I am not an admin after all. Sorry again, DePlume (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey sections
So I have read the above, and have various thoughts about several things ppl have said. That said, the discussion has me musing: What if we did away with the Support/Oppose sections entirely? Perhaps this might nudge people to actually discuss rather than just "drive by vote". And if there are closers who are merely "vote counting", this might help with that as well.

I'm not so naive to think that there aren't those who seem to think that consensus is "their right to vote", but I wonder where we actually are as a community on that.

Maybe we should start an RFC about it - with support and oppose sections, of course : )  - jc37 14:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we need more information about why people are using this format. There are sometimes good reasons (e.g., expecting an unusually high volume of responses or to signal the end of a long background explanation) and sometimes it's just what you saw elsewhere and you liked the aesthetics.  We wouldn't want to propose a rule against something without understanding why editors are doing it.  So I've gone through the list – @Blueboar, it's still not "most", but it is more than it used to be – and I've made a little list from the article-related RFCs.  Perhaps these editors can tell us what inspired them to choose a more complicated format.  Therefore, I'm pinging:
 * @Robert McClenon because of Talk:Argentina national football team results (2020–present) and Talk:Algeria
 * @Clear Looking Glass who has made a voting section at Talk:Hamdi Ulukaya that nobody has used
 * @Tbhotch because of Talk:Super Straight
 * @Wingedserif because of Talk:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence
 * @JBchrch because of Talk:Great Barrington Declaration/Archive 5
 * @Boud who has given people instructions on how to vote at Talk:Demographics of Eritrea
 * @Lawrencekhoo who added a simple ===Comments=== subsection at Talk:Elizabeth II and Talk:Isa Briones
 * @Springee because of Talk:Odal (rune)
 * @MJL because of Talk:List of people killed for being transgender
 * All: The ultimate goal is to have the complexity of the RFC format match the complexity of the situation.  You have an RFC open that has some ===Extra structure=== inside it.  This isn't automatically a bad thing.  What I'm asking is why you decided to use this style.  My hope is to turn your best practices into a good explanation about when to add and when to avoid subsections.  It's okay if you don't have much of an answer or if your answer is that it was probably unnecessary.  We just want to know if you can give us any advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Caveat: that was my first RfC, so my views are probably not the most policy-based but maybe a good indication of how RfCs are seen by newer editors. First, I opened my RfC after a long article talk discussion and then user talk discussion with a single other editor. We were going in circles so I wanted to break that. Unfortunately, most of the editors who responded in the Survey section didn't stick around for the ensuing longer discussion, which has left the RfC w/ an unclear consensus (so far).
 * Second, I included a Survey section because I was under the impression that they make clear what each editor's overall recommendations for the topic, regardless of how into-the-weeds the discussion gets. It's a courtesy for readers who want to know where everyone stands, but !voting. — Wingedserif (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who created the substructure at the Talk:Great Barrington Declaration RfC . However, in my completely anecdotal and limited experience, discussions section are also often created by participants in order to write/comment something that is not a !vote. JBchrch (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Responding to WhatamIdoing's ping: I like the general format of the ==Title + opening statements/question ===Survey ===Discussion layout.  I don't like it when some editors just post a question and the RfC tag.  Still, I haven't thought much about a possibly better structure.  I do get what Blueboar was concerned about regarding hyper links.  To avoid this issue I often add to the Survey etc names to avoid cross linking RfCs.  I sympathize with the concern regarding vote counting vs argument quality (kudos to S Marshall for many well thought out closes... except for any that closed the way I didn't want of course).  Still, I don't think the concern regarding simply vote counting is always that big an issue.  If there isn't a strong policy based reason then often vote counting is the best we have and part of why I agree with the idea that, in general, a consensus is far more than just 51% favor X.  Perhaps the biggest issue I've seen is if we get a questionable closing (the old super vote), the close is challenged and then those who liked the close show up and argue the facts of the case, not the facts of the closing and we get a "no consensus to re-open".  For example if say 51% say "Yes" and the RfC is closed as "Consensus for Yes".  The "No's" challenge the closing, the Yes's say "good close" and we get a roughly 50-50 split thus no consensus to re-open.  Forgive me that off topic rant.  Anyway, I think the survey count does matter but it isn't the only issue.  Some editors seem to do a nice job with these closings while others don't.  Perhaps haps what might be helpful here would be two different types of RfC.  The survey kind works well if the question is rather binary.  It fails when we are looking for open ended suggestions.  Perhaps we should consider an alternative suggested format for cases where we really are looking for open ended suggestions/comments rather than what might be called adjudicating content.  A RfC that is meant to be more like a "please provide an outside voice" may be helpful.  If the "Survey !vote" RfC is a trial, what I'm suggesting is a "Rf amicus brief". Springee (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave a brief summary of what the question means and what the options mean, listing all options that I could think of as possibly being reasonable or having been proposed, so that people could !vote meaningfully. Given my perception that one likely participant involved in the issue seemed to persist in making ambiguous statements, it seemed necessary to define things reasonably clearly. (PS: Closure of the RfC by an uninvolved editor is needed...) Boud (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Responding to the ping, but I occasionally use survey sections for the same reasons everyone else said. I also do it because it forces people to take a hard stance on the RFC's main question. RFCs are supposed to be used when conventional discussions have broken down into dispute, so when I make a survey I try to format it in such a way that it has a clear structure and purpose. That way, outsiders may be more keen on participating and eventually closing it. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please can we not make a rule deprecating support/oppose sections. There are definitely use cases.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 10:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @S Marshall, how often (outside of RFA, which isn't an RFC anyway) do you actually need separate ===Support=== and ===Oppose=== sections? A single ===Survey=== or ===Poll=== section is far more common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * May I refer you to the "examples" section, below? I do think that there can be times when straight-up voting is appropriate, and separate sections can be a good choice for those times.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the examples have a separate section for supporters and opposers. Compare those layouts to Talk:Malassezia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I was still reflecting on separating the !votes from the discussion. I should have been reflecting on separating the supports from the opposes.  I've added another practice example where this was done.  In cases where the RfC drafters have decided to split off the !votes from the discussion, I can't see any practical difference about how the !votes are grouped.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 10:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I find that when the votes are split, that I don't read as many comments, and I tend to primarily read comments from one section or the other. Also, it's harder to see those moments when one editor presents such compelling information that the discussion is basically over.  We've all seen that in AFDs, right?  Everyone says keep, keep, keep, keep until an editor points out that the article is a blatant copyright violation, and after that, everyone says delete, delete, delete, delete.  Or they're voting to delete an article as being non-notable until someone posts a list of whole books about the subject, and then everyone changes their minds.  I wouldn't want to ban it, because every now and again we run into a "majority rule" situation with a very large number of voters, but it is usually a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say it's "often" a bad idea. I'm concerned that if we say something like "often a bad idea" in the rules, that would be read and widely understood as "totally verboten".—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think your edit summary exaggerated things. It often takes two years for people to notice that the rules changed in the first place.  But once they've noticed that the rule exists, you're right that it can be a quick trip from "strictly optional suggestion" to "mandatory rule followed by all loyal citizens".   WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To User:S Marshall: OK, I am biassed in this one thanks to Talk:Michael John Graydon Soroka, but I think that doing away with support/oppose/neutral and mandating "Survey" will greatly improve readability. What's better than having "Support", "Oppose", and "Comments" merged into one? That was rhetorical, NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC) (formerly DePlume)
 * There are plenty of cases which if any restrictions on subsections are applied would affect them detrimentally. Sometimes RfCs don't have any subsections at all as they aren't contentious.-- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 20:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply by Robert McClenon
I will reply this way, maybe to annoy everybody. User:WhatamIdoing - I created those RFCs with Survey sections because I have been creating RFCs with Survey sections for years, and I have not been advised that a different form is preferred. For background information, the RFCs that I create are usually from DRN, so that I am neutral and am trying to keep the RFC neutral. One of the reasons for the Survey section was to keep the !votes separate from any long back-and-forth. I don't use Support and Oppose because I don't always have only two options, and besides sometimes the Support/Oppose choices seem non-neutral, to favor one choice. Sometimes I have broken an RFC into sections; in that case, I usually have multiple Survey sections.

Basically, I use Survey sections in order to keep the short responses separate from the long discussion, and because I have been doing it for years, and have not been advised that there is a better way. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a fair assessment of why others (myself included) have added such sections. I wonder if there would be a better way (or maybe better ways) to suggest for "best practices", in order to better foster discussion, rather than merely to add-a-comment. - jc37 18:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as they are neutral it's perfectly fine to name your subsections the way you like. It's basically matters of personal preferences and any restrictions here would create unnecessary inconveniences and give another reason to harass newcomers/inexperienced contributors instead of making useful contributions. -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 20:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sub-sections clarification
Just a note... I don’t have an issue with dividing an RFC into subsections... my issue is not clarifying which RFC the subsection is attached to. A page such as the RS noticeboard can have as many as five RFCs open at the same time, and it is often difficult to keep track of which RFC a comment is being posted to. In mobile view, you can see the subheading, so you know that the comment was posted under “Discussion” or “Survey”... but when there are multiple RFC threads, each with a “Survey” and “Discussion” you can not tell which “Survey” or “Discussion” the comment belongs to. It would be helpful if, in an RFC about X, the subheadings said “Discussion (X RFC)” or “Survey (X RFC)”... to differentiate it from “Discussion (Y RFC)” and “Survey (Y RFC)” Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that comment, User:Blueboar. Having multiple subsections with the same name can cause problems in desktop view also, so, as you note, it is helpful to disambiguate the sections (sort of like disambiguating articles).  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As established in the early replies in the parent section, this is not a problem with insufficient consensus or guidelines, but insufficient awareness and enforcement. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As 68.97.37.21 mentioned above, this is covered under WP:TALKNEW ("Don't create a new heading that duplicates an existing heading"). However, I think it would be helpful to briefly mention the recommendation on this page as well. —  Newslinger  talk   10:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I added that to Requests for comment/Example formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Practice examples
I'd like to try to illuminate this with a few examples, and I'm interested in the community's view on the design and structure of each.

Example 1: Is there a difference between V and V**?. In this case, the drafters (correctly in my view) decided not to use a survey section. At issue was a question of mathematics. It has a right answer and a wrong answer, and any compromise between the right answer and the wrong answer is another kind of wrong answer. So a simple, free-form discussion that invited proofs and evidence was the correct format.

Example 2: Which image of Donald Trump shall we use?. In this case, the drafters (defensibly in my view) decided to use a weighted voting system. At issue was a question of aesthetic judgment, and no policy or guideline to inform the choice was available. So a weighted voting system was the correct format, although as it turned out, editors didn't make much use of the weighting.

Example 3: Concerning campus rape. In this case there were no subsections and nobody used a bolded vote. The issues in that one were topical at the time, and rather difficult to resolve, but in my view the structure needed no more complexity. I feel that votes would have been unhelpful.

Example 4:  Concerning racially nuanced language in article titles. In this case, there was a survey, followed by discussion subsections which contained an awful lot of thought. I put it to you that it was not possible to close that RfC adequately without reading the discussion sections in full. A less structured RfC would have been just as easy to close; and I would have preferred fewer constraints on how editors can give their input.

Example 5: Regarding people who aren't deaf. In this case, the RfC was poorly designed, phrased as a yes-or-no choice when in fact there were additional options. This one was early in my RfC closing "career", so to speak, and it's informed a lot of my subsequent closing practice. Where there are either/or choices, I always ask myself if the question is framed right. Are these all the options? Are the options mutually exclusive?

Example 6: On nationality. This discussion separated the "support" votes from the "opposes". I don't think the structure affected the conduct or outcome of the RfC. I don't see it as a helpful thing to do, but I can't see how it harms, either.

I do think there's a place for the voting structure.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Reflecting on those cases has brought me to S Marshall's Principle of RfC Design, which is: When you're choosing between different ways you could format an RfC, you should prefer the least restrictive, where the least restrictive is the format that has the fewest constraints on what editors can say and where they can say it.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What these examples show is that there isn’t one single “best way” to format an RFC. It isn’t wrong to use a tightly structured format (although I do wish that more RFCs using the “choose A, B or C” format would include a “D - none of the above - please explain” option) but it also isn’t wrong to set up something more open ended. Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Where to host RfCs
Please see Village pump (idea lab) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

FRS list too large
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service § Too large. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 00:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * We've decided to remove the names of editors who haven't made any edits for over a year. This should cut down on pointless notifications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

An RfC to modify an image
Hello,

Is it too trivial to start an RfC to get input on modifying an image? File:Ambox warning pn.svg has a shadow which is cut off on the right. At Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/Jun 2021 another person has tried to fix this problem, but the new image is slightly smaller than the old one, and in a slightly different position. I'd like to start an RfC to get wider input on whether or not to replace the current file with the new one. Any advice is appreciated. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: If you reply to this, please ping me. Thank you. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * User:DesertPipeline: You want wider input than what? You actually have no input at all right now other than your own.  The conversation to which you refer is with a graphic designer who is trying to create an image to your specifications for you to use however you will.  You can boldly replace the file, and if someone likes the current one better, he can change it back.  Or if you think that's too risky, you could find an appropriate talk page (maybe the talk page for the file) and solicit opinions in advance.  (And if you don't get any, you might conclude no one cares but you and be somewhat more emboldened to replace the file).
 * I don't think the issue is too trivial for an RfC. An RfC would become appropriate if a controversy brews and you don't find local consensus and you think wider input would develop consensus.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Giraffedata: I'll try asking on the talk page as you suggest then. Thank you. DesertPipeline (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC correct placement help
The RfC here is disconnected from a preceding dicussion, and it seems that responders do not see the actual issue. Can someone edit and join the two Sections, please? Thank you. Esem0 (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All you needed to do was move the RfC to be directly after the related section, and drop it from level 2 to level 3, . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU !!! :) Esem0 (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Legobot notification frequency
I am wondering how often and how many random invitations does the Legobot send out during the 30-day period of an RfC? (Because I have not seen any yet in my RfC request) Esem0 (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Legobot hasn't actually sent FRS notices in years, and the task is being performed by instead. Yapperbot sends between 5 and 15 (chosen at random) notices of each RfC, once, between 30 and 90 minutes after the RfC starts. In your case, you started a RfC at 06:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC), and the bot notified 5 people of the RfC at 07:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC). I'm not sure what you're complaining about. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  01:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not complaining about anything. I just did not know, this my first RfC. So, thank you very much for your nice help and information. Esem0 (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposals
Please see Wikipedia talk:Merging where it is suggested that WP:RFCNOT should not include merge proposals. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Time between RFCs
What's a reasonable amount of time to wait between similar RFCs? Three months? Six months? Thanks for your input. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That very much depends what's changed in the meantime. On general principles, I would say that three months is normally too short.  We allow renomination of an AfD after that kind of time, but an AfD is a seven-day process involving a handful of editors.  A RfC uses up a lot of volunteer time, and volunteer time is Wikipedia's only limiting resource -- RfC is an "expensive" process, if you will -- so its outcomes should normally be enforceable for a goodly period.  But in this case I suspect that your question might really be about an edit to one of the pandemic-related pages, in which case I think the emergence of a significant new source that discusses the proposed edit would be a reasonable trigger for a fresh RfC even if only a few months had passed.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 20:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about an RfC just to see if opinions have changed on something, without any particular reason to expect they have, I would say a year. If it's something else, I can see cases where as little as a day between similar RfCs makes sense.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is using the RfC process for moving, merging, and splitting not allowed?
With centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations, RfCs are a way to attract more attention and get opinions from uninvolved, experienced editors. In WP:RFCNOT, why isn't it allowed to use RfC when move/merge/split proposals doesn't reach a consensus or doesn't have enough participation?T161237 (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Because starting a second discussion (RFC) to discuss the lack of participation in the first discussion (move/merge/split proposal) is almost the definition of a futile time-sink.Ensuring the first discussion is flagged on the talk pages of the WikiProjects mentioned on the articles' talk pages is a good way to pull in more eye-balls. If that doesn't work, well, no matter how much it matters to you, sometimes you just have to accept that the community's response to the proposal is a heartfelt "Meh". Cabayi (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also see my comments at Wikipedia talk:Merging. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's because prospective commenters' time is scarce and belongs to the commenters. If they have chosen not to participate in the move/merge/split process, no one has a right to force a move/merge/split question in front of them anyway.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The same issue, when discussed using different process will recieve different level of attention. The current situation is RFC > move/merge/split > Talk page. While move/merge/split has it's own process, the participation is no where near the level of a RFC. The RFC requires discussing the matter on the talk page first, and when it doesn't reach a consensus or doesn't have enough participation, we could start an RfC, and we would not say it is futile. While some people may choose not to participate in the talk page discussion, others are just not aware of it. I think similar could be said for move/merge/split proposals. The RFC process even has random, bot-delivered invitations to attract people who would otherwise not participate, and we would not say we are forcing a question in front of them. In addition, for some controversial topics, it is better to have neutral, uninvolved participants. Advertising only on the related Wikiproject would mostly attract people very interested in the topic, which might have strong, polarized views that might prevent forming consensus.--T161237 (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * People who sign up for the Feedback request service are self-selected participants, and with few exceptions, they choose the topic area that interests them. They are not necessarily "neutral, involved participants" who don't have "strong, polarized views".
 * If you think that Proposed article mergers and Proposed article splits needs more participation, then you could promote those processes to other editors. It would be possible to clone the Feedback request service and let people sign up if they want to comment on splits and merges.
 * That said, my experience with splits and merges over the last ~15 years is that the problem isn't coming to consensus; the problem is find one individual editor who is willing to do the tedious and sometimes time-consuming work necessary to split or merge the pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

A very small issue
The instructions at WP:RFCOPEN says: The section heading should begin with "RfC" or "Request for comment", for example "RfC on beak length" or "Request for comments on past or present tense for television series". It seems to me that the instruction (where RfC is spelled out) should either be plural to correspond with the example or the example should be singular to correspond with the instruction. Perhaps it doesn't matter. I leave it for the page watchers to decide. Thanks.--John Cline (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The page is consistent in saying it's a request for comment, not for comments, so I changed the example to say "Request for comment". Good catch.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:Rfc or WP:DRN
Hello, Wikipedians. I took part in the discussion (started by me) about the definition of Donbas. An extensive discussion obviously began to go in circles, and I decided to address the request for a 3O. One user responded and wrote, if not a full third opinion, but a general summary of the dispute. This, however, was enough for my request for a third opinion to be closed. Since I would like to take every opportunity to draw the attention of the community to the discussion, I want to take the next step. But since I am not sure which step will be most acceptable in my situation, I would like to consult about it here. Where should I turn in the first place? WP:Rfc or WP:DRN? Thanks in advance for the advise. Eksul (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd go to RfC.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * RfC rather than DRN, but I wonder if another 3O would be appropriate, since the person who responded to the original 3O request explicitly said he wasn't giving a third opinion. His summary would greatly reduce another editor's work in offering an actual opinion.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to make another request for a third opinion, but I believe that if the first one was deleted simply because not a full third opinion but a reaction (a summary) was received, then the second one will also be deleted.--Eksul (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am the one who attempted to summarize the dispute on the talk page. Essentially I wanted to fulfill 3O’s suggestion that In cases involving long discussions [...] editors are requested to present a short summary of the dispute, in plain English [...], so that 3O volunteers may find it easier to respond to. I specifically intended not to give a third opinion, because of two problems: (1) I have not read the whole argument (albeit very long, this would be required per WP:3O) and (2) I know nothing about the region, cannot read Russian etc. and therefore am not qualified to a point that I would judge sufficient to evaluate arguments of either side. I had hoped that if both editors in the dispute had agreed the summary was accurate, this would eliminate problem (1): whoever could fix problem (2) could come and give a 3O reading only the summary. However, one of the parties to the dispute did not answer, and the other rehashed their argument in a way that I could not understand what fix to the summary if any was needed. At that point I (silently) threw the towel since I felt my effort had yielded zero result.
 * I did not remove the 3O request myself; this was done by in this edit. In my opinion this was incorrect. However, they probably know much better than me how 3O works; possibly, they judged that further attempts were pointless.  Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am required to remove all 3O responses once more than 2 people get involved, and I considered Tigraan as summarizing as partially involving. I normally do not read the full argument at 3O and more than once I have unstuck disagreements at 3O with summarizing. I also removed it since there wasn't much activity after Tigraans summarizing; if the dispute is once again active I'll answer it myself. Stale discussions are generally closed for a lack of discussion as well. Sorry if it's a bit scrambled, a bad storm passed through. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 14:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish you would, Sennecaster. I am not involved in this dispute, but I can see that the only reason this discussion seemed to stagnate is that the two disagreeing editors reached impasse, failed to get a third opinion, and then one of them came here looking for an alternative way to resolve the dispute.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm currently extremely preoccupied and not in a good 3O headspace; I just got hit by Hurricane Ida and I'm furthermore in school. I'll probably have to pass it off to someone else on a reassessment of my priorities and abilities. I'll also note that Transporterman previously declined the 3O before I saw it, which lead into me removing it as discussion stale because i didn't see much discussion except Tigraan and Eksul after the decline. Again, really not in a good headspace, so I'll revert the removal and let someone else handle it. Sorry for causing this mess, and I'll make sure to not repeat it.   courtesy pings  Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 02:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody is required to remove anything. In fact, we have a policy that says if following a normal rule would – in your own personal opinion, using your best judgment – make things worse, then you are required to ignore that rule.  Also, editors are WP:VOLUNTEER s, and volunteers are not required to do anything.  If other editors agree that the rule should be followed, but you think implementing it would be harmful, then you should refuse, and they should take that action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of material citing references from credible, peer review journals in "Turmeric"
I'm not sure why, but my edits citing peer reviewed journals (such as those published by the British Journal of Medicine) keep getting reverted in the article Turmeric without any adequate explanation by what appears to be perhaps a tag team of two very similarly-styled editors, who seem suggest that this is their article and that I have no right to edit it, without their "consensus" (ie., permission). This is not consensus. The article on turmeric involves some scientific and perhaps other controversy. It is not a neutral point of view to just deny numerous sources complying with Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (not that this article is primarily about medicine), and to instead push a one-sided view that there is "no evidence" that turmeric has any medicinal benefits. This is contradicted by various sources, including the NCCIH source already cited by a previous editor], but mischaracterized in this article (actually this source goes into the difficulties of ongoing studies on turmeric, and states that "[m]uch research has been done on substances from turmeric, but their health effects remain uncertain..." This is quite different than a point of view that there is no scientific evidence, or "weak", or there is no credible evidence. Also, why was the cited mention of large corporations attempting to take out patents on turmeric just reverted? It was well cited, and a fact is a fact. Also, is the fact that most of my deleted citations were written by persons of South Asian origin an example of systemic bias in Wikipedia? I have attempted to reason with the editors involved to no avail, and instead been accused of adding "unreliable" sources, not understanding this or that Wikipedia guideline, or of being a "genre warrior", and generally having all my edits reverted without any real discussion or acknowledgement that there is more than one point of view on turmeric. None of which is true, but amounts to simple insults rather than reasoning. JSTOR has 4,263 results for a search for "turmeric", representing many points of view; however, these viewpoints are certainly not reflected in our "Turmeric" article. Full disclosure: my only interest in the "Turmeric" article is that it be accurate. Apparently there is a lot of scientific controversy on this subject, and that is what the article should state, not that it has been resolved in a particular way. I'm not sure what to do here, but I think it would be good for Wikipedia if someone could look into this a bit so that we can have a more balanced and NPOV encyclopedia. Thanks, Dcattell (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't work out why you are posting this here. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Requests for comment. If you have suggestions about improving the article Turmeric, they should be posted at Talk:Turmeric. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and please forgive the following, although this really may actually have a direct bearing on how to improve Wikipedia RfCs, as a specific case example (more later). Actually, posting at the "Turmeric" talk page does not appear to be en effective solution. I guess I am looking for a different RfC page. Sorry about the mistake. Last time I had a problem, I went to ArbCom and got a suggestion to try RfC first instead. If this is actually a thing, than my suggestion for improvement would involve improved information about this. I'm sure if I read through enough material, I would eventually encounter something relevant, but it seems to be a lot of pages to go through to figure something out. Dcattell (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * it seems to be a lot of pages to go through to figure something out well, that is Wikipedia for you. I would encourage you to ask any process questions you may have at the Teahouse. That help forum is intended for new editors. This being said, since I am a Teahouse regular, I might as well give you some advice right now:
 * This page, right here, is dedicated to suggesting changes to how RfCs are run in general, or about the wording of the policy page, etc. It should not be used for specific RfCs. What you could do is open an RfC on the page Talk:Turmeric via the process described at WP:RFCOPEN... although I advise against it for the moment.
 * Indeed, looking at Talk:Turmeric, I do not think you are anywhere close to having exhausted the talk page discussion method. I would suggest that instead of edit-warring on the article, you post your proposed modifications on the talk page (in a "change [some text] to [other text]" format, not "we should mention [some very vague concept] somehow"). (This is something you will need to do to open an RfC anyway.) If other editors comment and object, you discuss with them (on the talk page rather than in edit summaries) and try to reach an agreement. If that fails, you can then open an RfC on the remaining points of disagreement (which hopefully will have been somewhat "refined" in the process).
 * From the page history, other editors seemed to object to your modifications based on WP:MEDRS. You would do well to ensure you have read and understood that guideline before proceeding. (Again, you can ask questions at the Teahouse if something is unclear.) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Tigraan, and my apologies for the following up, although perhaps it can be excused since as an actual specific case example it is likely to be useful towards complementing a more general, theoretical approach towards improving the RfC process (more on that later). So, actually, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007, and registered as a User in 2008. I am not a new editor and I do have a good understanding of the process and guidelines, demonstrated by over 18,670 total edits, over 99% which are live. I have successfully collaborated with many editors, some of whom started off with a rocky relationship; and which, by good will on both sides, we were able to resolve our apparent differences, or come to a productive understanding by respecting each others encyclopedic work, despite perhaps legitimate approaches or weighting of sources. This is not the case here. If you look at the archive for Talk:Turmeric it would appear that the weight of editorial consensus regarding editing "Turmeric" is along the lines of my attempted NPOV edits. I have been more-or-less familiar with WP:MEDRS for years, although I do not generally or never edit medical science articles. To see that general consensus on the article tends towards my NPOV approach, see Talk:Turmeric/Archive_1. The same thing happened to various other editors as to my edits: summary deletion by two User accounts (mostly one, but having two accounts working in tandem simplifies reversions by avoiding the Three Revert Rule which one account is bound by), sometimes MEDRS is invoked, not according to consensus or guidelines, but only as a tool to raise a cursorily plausible objection, but not really following it (by the way, neither account apparently is by editors expert in medical science experts, but rather editors more interested regarding commercially valuable plants). The Talk process of developing consensus on the Talk page has indeed been exhausted (dating back 2004 to present). Furthermore, "Turmeric" is primarily not a medical article ("Curcumin" is, but I'll leave that to other editors to handle): Turmeric is a plant, although possibly having medicinal properties. My edit on traditional plant uses and the attempts of large corporations to obtain patents on it was also deleted (along with actual threats directed toward me for having made the edit). Editors often give up when faced with a situation like this: we're told try, try reasoning with the other editors (even if they are unreasonable and refuse to actually discuss anything substantive about editing the article in question, to keep trying to somehow thereby to reach consensus (and if it does not work just try again), then (once exhausted) try RfC, try ArbCom. We are try, try, try....and, then told to try some other forum. We hear "that's just the way Wikipedia is: well, it shouldn't be (and it is blatantly a failure on Wikipedia's part to allow deletion of guideline-compliant sources and to allow editorially stonewalling by passively disruptive editors that cite some WP:XX policy that supposedly justifies pushing a particular POV). Many of us, including myself, generally do our best to follow guidelines (not being disruptive, seeking consensus, etc.). So, I should try Teahouse? I think I did before once (and told I should try somewhere else (actually, I'm pretty sure it was to try RfC or ArbCom); but, I can try TH/Teahouse again. The process seems kind of circular though, and does not seem to have a clear path towards developing encyclopedic content. Anyway, thank you for your indulgence Dcattell (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I had not checked your number of edits, sorry about calling you a newbie. This being said... the fact that you are still delving into the facts of a content dispute on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment suggests that you are not, in fact, very familiar with the way dispute resolution works.
 * WP:TH is only for questions about editing Wikipedia, the process etc. - but it is a poor forum to resolve content disputes.
 * I maintain that you have not exhausted the talk page options. The last post of the archive thread that you point to dates from 2014, the one before that from 2009, and there has been lots of discussion after it in the same archive, so it is safe to say that the consensus did not solidify in that thread (besides I fail to see that it supports your position, but please do not argue about it here). As far as I can see (ctrl-f on the talk page and its archive) you have a grand total of one (1) post to the talk page of the article.
 * If and when you have actually tried to discuss on the talk page, you fail to convince others and they fail to convince you, then and only then you make an RfC. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tigraan! I appreciate your faith in Talk pages, although it is hard when no one wants to talk. I have mostly contributed in the area of medieval Chinese poetry, and most associated Talk pages generally have very little to no activity, for some reason. I have now learned that RfCs are part of a dispute resolution process, on Wikipedia: you are indeed quite correct about my unfamiliarity about the way dispute resolution works on Wikipedia. More specifically, I am not very familiar with the Wikipedia RfC process, or I would not have posted about my distress here, initially. In a way this is a good thing: for many years I was able to make substantial contributions, without resorting to dispute resolution! The Wikipedia culture is not now the quite the same as it used to be: growing pains, I think. I sincerely hope that the time and energy we have spent helps to develop a better encyclopedia. Thank you, again, Tigraan, and User:Redrose64, and the rest of the RfC project: in incalculable ways, your work at Wikipedia Project RfC makes the world a better place. Dcattell (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dcattell, if you are looking for a different forum for raising your concerns about that article, you could try Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Just in case it's relevant, you'll want to be clear on the difference between a review article and an article that has undergone Peer review, and to note that the English Wikipedia is usually unenthusiastic about any claims that any non-pharmaceutical compound could have any positive effect on anyone's health.  Heroin kills people; tobacco kills people; sugar kills people; raw foodism kills people; water kills people – and you might count yourself lucky if we can agree that turmeric doesn't usually kill people.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * :) Dcattell (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * as related in the Curcumin article, it may do just that.. It's excellent when making daal though. Alexbrn (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Philosophy template
I tried to edit Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy to remove the WikiProject template, but Legobot reverted me. Anyone know how to make it not do that? Dan from A.P. (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know where that's controlled. I didn't see anything obvious among the 58 pages in Special:WhatLinksHere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's hardcoded in the bot's source code. A comment in the source code says, which appears to refer to Special:PermaLink/293831953. If you want the template removed, you are going to have to ask  to update the bot (by deleting the aforementioned line of code). That said, I don't see why the template shouldn't be there. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  17:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay. Well, the reason I tried to remove it is because it looks odd when transcluded into an otherwise empty section at WP:RFC/A, and because there's no apparent reason why it should be there. None of the other subpages have sidebars. It was added without explanation (by User:Gregbard, the template creator), and I couldn't find any prior discussion about it. I assumed it was one of these relics of the past that had stuck around through inertia. I still think that's the case, but it's not worth starting a formal discussion about (which I suppose I'd have to do in order to get the bot's code changed). Dan from A.P. (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your assumption about it being a relic of the past seems to be valid. In terms of getting it removed, you'd probably just have to ask Lego, but he's really busy.  (The editor who asked for it to be included was indeffed five years ago for copyvios, so he's not going to be around to object.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If someone could send a pull request with the changes needed, that would be appreciated and I can deploy it. Legoktm (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Legoktm here you go :) https://github.com/legoktm/harej-bots/pull/11 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, merged and deployed! Legoktm (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, original bot developer here. Years ago when I built RFC bot for the first time, WikiProject Philosophy requested that a special template appear on the listing for philosophy-related RFCs. Over 10 years later I can imagine priorities being different. Thank you Shushugah for the pull request. Harej (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC not entered centrally
At Talk:Chanhassen, Minnesota, the editor did not enter the RfC centrally on this RfC noticeboard. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you mean? After, the RfC was . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake. A bot removed the template five days ago. I don't think a formal close is necessary; there seems to be a clear consensus. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was because thirty days had elapsed since the timestamp following, which was 14:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC) - so Legobot was eligible to remove it at any time after 14:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for RfC improvement based on the experiences a regular editor
Here are some specific suggestions on improving the RfC project page based upon my experience(s) as someone experienced with editing Wikipedia articles, with rare need to request help on how to do so, generally through editing or talk pages. Sometime the process itself fails, and in the case of "Turmeric" I took the extraordinary step of seeking assistance. in the past helpful administrators suggested RfC. I read through Requests for comment, not thoroughly because I did not know if it was the right page and there were other leads that I was looking into. Upon closer reading, "WP:RfC" actually says something along the lines that starting an RfC involves the transclusion of an RfC template tag, including on a talk page or project page. But this is not made clear in the lead, and made me wonder if the Project page actually describes how to do the RfC process, or if like other projects' pages it is a general discussion of the project. Perhaps, I thought, and the specifics of the RfC process were on a different page dedicated to that, perhaps reached by one of the many links towards the top of the article. I probably should have known that template transclusion is the action which an editor should take toward initiating an RfC on Wikipedia, since I have participated in them before, just not in in a while. I guess I got thrown off, because the WP:RfC article goes through a lot of other stuff first, without explicitly saying that this is the right page for specific information which an editor would practically need on the process, together with a lot of links elsewhere which seem like they might lead to the right page, and no link in the lead paragraph to the how-to process. It seems essential to say in the lead that this article describes the RfC process, and in which section the information is located (with a suggestion to read certain other sections of the article which generally apply -- this does not include bot specifics, or other advanced topics!). A clear statement in the lead would be much more efficient than finding one's way to the how-to section after first reading a lead paragraph that perhaps implies that the article that the editor has landed on may be a general discussion on RfCs (and thinking that perhaps the information is at one of the provided links and perhaps getting diverted into taking a chance on one or two, then perhaps beginning to read though two other sections (including how not to so an RfC!) before actually getting to the the process of doing an RfC, and I started to rapidly skimming through this and other articles in hopes of seeing something that quickly stands out as how to do an RfC. Maybe at this point "Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues" just registers as more general topic discussion. Anyway, this is meant to be a positive and constructive comment, and I am only including my experiences as an illustrative example. My suggestion, then, is that the lead paragraph explicitly states that the RfC process is described, with a link so that an a potential editor can get a quick overview, before a detailed description about befor starting the process and how not to do the process. I realize that it is reasonable for an editor to be familiar with these two things before doing an RfC, but it is only fair to having doing an RfC process to be particularly prominent. (This would also take care of the problem I had when I clicked the link at the top of the "WP:RfC" to Requests for comment/All aka ("WP:RFC/A)", thinking that this may be a page to post RfCs (similarly to the ArbCom process of posting on a certain notice board). Only by attempting to post, did I find out that my post would be deleted through an automated process (but without any clear hint about where I should be posting instead). I am familiar with RfCs from other organization than Wikipedia, and they are sometimes done with some sort of notice board process. To summarize my suggestions: (1) have an immediate and more explicit mention of what an editor needs to know about what the RfC process entails from the perspective of an editor thinking about doing the process, stating that the process steps are detailed later in the article, and that they include primarily involve template transclusion on an appropriate page -- that this would be most likely best be done on a specific article talk page or a project page, with more details in the relevant section). Saying "a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations" is generally relevant, but by itself not super-helpful to an editor who is more interested in editing articles than the backend details. (2) The next really very helpful thing would be a clearly labeled subsection with "How to" in the title to be included. Maybe change "Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues" to "How to do an RfC"? I think the series of numbered or bulleted steps already in "WP:RfC" are along the right lines, but could be more like the ones in the computer manuals I used to help write and edit. So, besides noticing this section in the lead, I think it would be more obvious to editors that are relatively unfamiliar with the RfC process to re-title this section "How to make a Request for Comment". We could call it "Requests for Comments for Dummies", but John Wiley and Sons might object! Then, in this section, before the actual steps, we should have a brief explanation about what the section is about, including a few sentences of introductory context, such as: "the following steps explain the Request for Comment (RfC) process on Wikipedia. The process begins with identifying or confirming an appropriate page on which the comment process should take place, after which an RfC template tag should placed there, together with specifics regarding the request. After that relevant parties will be notified through an automated software process. Generally, the RfC should be done on a specific article Talk or Project page. After reviewing the above guidelines and determining that the RfC process is appropriate in this case, then the following steps provide more detail and may be followed to request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues." Also, as a further, more specific suggestion for improvement I looked at several other pages. One is regarding RFCBRIEF: this is a redirect page which does not seem to automatically redirect, appears somewhat cryptic (that is, lacking context to make it easy to figure out how it is relevant or not). Manually clicking the redirect link took me to a section of "WP:RfC" which seems mostly to discuss some "Legobot", and was not what I was looking for. Anyway, thank you project members for the good work, and I hope that these suggestions and accompanying narrative from an experienced editor who is very much not an RfC expert may be of help to this essential project! Dcattell (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've made some small changes that go a long way toward fixing that, mainly by making the outline more clear.  There still needs to be an overview of the RfC process, and one of how one creates an RfC - more than is in the lead but less than what is in the body today, and I plan to work on that next.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We could definitely use a page called something like WP:RFCHOW, designed for people who already know what an RfC is and are already sure that RfC is the appropriate venue, that gives clear, step-by-step instructions about how to start one.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there are enough steps to merit a separate page on starting an RFC, for the people who already know what they're doing. You slap   on the page, followed by your question, which is formatted as a normal talk-page comment.  That's it.  All the complicated bits are about deciding whether to do this, exactly what to ask, how to (fairly) encourage participation, and how to behave after you've started it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it does look simple, but I've noticed that Redrose64 seems to spend a lot of time fixing malformed RfCs.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Mostly because people didn't read WP:RFCST or WP:RFCBRIEF, as . Some people blame me, Legobot, or anybody but themselves for the mistakes that they made themselves. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, users don't read the instructions. This page is rather well-written and readable, by the shockingly low accessibility standards of Wikipedia rules pages, but it still doesn't get read.I have a rant that I occasionally type out about how bad we Wikipedians are at our purported job when we start to write out rules.  I mean, encyclopaedists summarize -- our key task is to explain things, including complex and nuanced things, in brief, clear and simple terms.  But look at our rules pages: they're just dismal at doing that.  Atrocious.  Appalling.  WP:RFC is among the least horrible but people still don't read it.Anyway, editors might just read a 150-word step-by-step guide on how to list a RfC that won't break the bots.  I'll have a pop at it at some point, if nobody else beats me to it.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added the overview section I promised above -- overview of the RfC process and concept, not a howto. I tried to cover various misconceptions people have brought to this page over the years.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Giraffedata: your edit added the words "An RfC need not, however, involve a dispute at all." I felt that's adding too much encouragement, and weakens the appropriate emphasis: this is a dispute resolution mechanism. Perhaps there was consensus that I missed in this thread? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Peter Gulutzan, I started a completely dispute-less RFC once; you can see it at Wikipedia talk:Independent sources/Archive 1 They aren't common, but sometimes you want to collect more information to prevent a possible dispute, rather than to solve an existing one.  Consider also a proposal such as this one.  This was a CENT-listed RFC at the Village Pump.  There was no dispute at the time.  (There was one later, when the WMF finally implemented the almost-unanimously supported proposal, and some editors started screaming that bold-face type gives them headaches and that a CENT-listed RFC at one of the highest traffic discussion pages in the entire wiki isn't "well-advertised".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One unwelcome trend over the years is that RfC's seem increasingly to be treated as requests for judgement rather than for comment, in some kind of quasi-legalistic way. I'd prefer if it there was some way they could be framed as a method of last resort for dispute resolution, since they are such a heavyweight process demanding community time. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Alexbrn, don't you think that framing RFCs as a method of last resort would tend to elevate the judgement-related aspects and the perception that they're a heavyweight process? Maybe we should encourage people to use them as a second resort, for smaller and easier questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, I suppose that's a risk. Sigh. Perhaps we should just state plainly what the concern is - something like "be mindful that an RfC makes demands on other editors who often need to familiarise themselves with the question at hand and formulate a response. For this reason consider using other, less onerous, forms of dispute resolution if possible". ?? Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some years back, I felt like one of the major problems was getting enough editors to respond. This is much less of a problem now.  "Wasting editors' time" seems lower risk than it used to.
 * We might have a bigger problem with editors responding without properly understanding the subject than we used to.
 * I wonder whether you can articulate what makes an RFC feel like an onerous process. I can feel it, but I can't explain it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that we should forbid RfCs done in anticipation of a dispute, I said we shouldn't encourage non-dispute RfCs by adding this specific sentence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Where Peter Gulutzan says "this is a dispute resolution mechanism", I would put it more strongly than that. RfC is the only dispute resolution mechanism when talk page discussion fails.  Nowadays, we don't have any other way of escalating a content dispute, and RfC isn't usually used for any other purpose.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A content dispute on an article's talk page may be escalated to an appropriate WikiProject, perhaps a general noticeboard like WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN. We should emphasise the "method of last resort" aspect of RfC. As I have noted previously, too many RfCs are started as an initial step following an undiscussed revert, and I have occasionally seen cases where an RfC is started for a proposed change that hasn't even got to the B stage of BRD, let alone R and D. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Giraffedata has not come here to defend the edit which I worried was encouraging, most who have come here seem to oppose, good. If any of the editors who want more discouraging wording will start a new thread and propose a change, I think that will be even better. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement that RfCs need not involve disputes is a reflection of something I've seen on this talk page many times over the years. People have often proposed additions to the page that imply any RfC is part of a dispute and these additions have to be reworded to reflect that dispute resolution is just one of the reasons someone might request comment.  If RfC were really an arbitration system, it would have a lot more teeth than it does.  It would look more like the existing arbitration or former mediation systems.  And you'd probably see text on the page before now that says that's what it is.
 * My own opinion is that it's fine for people to request comments on things that are not the subject of a dispute. Everything doesn't have to be adversarial.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with . However, I am afraid there is such an entrenched POV around here literally prohibiting logical discussion and genuine improvement of the RfC process. Esem0 (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Poor Esem0! We're so mean to him.  Anyway, Wikipedia has ways to deal with conduct disputes, but there's no parallel content dispute resolution mechanism.  With all due respect for Bryan Henderson's post above, RfC is the highest escalation point for content disputes, and in my view it's the only one.  You go to the talk page, with or without trying to attract attention from Wikiprojects or whatnot, and if that fails your choices are RfC or else go to AN/I and moan about the behaviour of the other side (which shouldn't work but, for some people, does).—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Re proposed additions to imply any RfC is part of a dispute: my opinion is that's what's already implied, unfortunately the first sentence of WP:RFC can now be parsed otherwise. Long ago it ended: "... process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines." until Noleander changed to "... process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies,  guidelines, article content,  or user conduct." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, it's not "proposed additions to imply ..." it's "proposed additions that imply ..." The additions weren't for the purpose of implying all RfCs are for dispute resolution; they just implied that by accident because the proposer wasn't thinking broadly enough. Until now, I don't think I've seen anyone propose that RfCs that don't seek to resolve disputes should be discouraged.
 * It looks to me like the introduction to RfCs both before and after that 2012 change said RfCs are for seeking outside input on a variety of things including matters under dispute, so I don't know why you brought it up. The old text says an RfC can also be used to request actual resolution of a dispute, whatever that means.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like the old text was seeking input on a variety of things under dispute not a variety of things, and I brought it up because the new text was non-consensus possibly-underemphasizing. But if nobody agrees with me, this is over. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC even though there is no active debate.
The RfC, if there is one, would be at Talk:Falsifiability. I hesitate to do a RfC, because it's not like there is an active debate that is going on. However, from times to times, occasionally, some people come and complain that they find it hard to read the lead. Usually, I explain the difficulty that is intrinsic to the subject, try to improve the lead as much as I can and the issue is "resolved". However, there is really a difficulty that is intrinsic to the subject and I suspect that there will always be people coming from times to times to complain in part because of that difficulty. My idea is that the existence of a RfC (where all the people that came in the past to complain will be invited) will help to determine the best approach. But I hesitate a lot. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Dominic Mayers, the RFC process is for editors who want to request comments. Starting a big, ugly fight beforehand has never actually been a requirement.  I have started non-dispute RFCs myself, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Independent sources/Archive 1
 * For that subject, it is possible that you would get better-informed comments by chatting up a relevant WikiProject.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice. Now, I know that I would not be reprimanded if I do the RfC and I see another possible, perhaps better approach. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Inactive RfC editors
Hello WP helpers! What happens when 4 out of 5 Yapperbot requests appear to go to editors being inactive for years? Would it be fair if it is possible to resend new requests and how? Is the number of requests (between 5-15?) random too? Thank you. Esem0 (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Esem0 (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is beaing dealt with, see Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, and I understand. It is a critical issue, though, for my case, as it seems I will get no RfCs from Yapperbot at the current rate, while the opposition is suggesting a consensus even after just a couple of comments. One remedy may be if the case could run, say, for 30-days. Is that a possibility to achieve via an administrator? Esem0 (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The tag is normally removed by  after thirty days. This is covered at WP:RFC. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it also says that ″But editors should not wait for that". Esem0 (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ending an RfC early is less common than letting it run the 30 days. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That discussion has been closed within four days including a weekend and without any participation from the RfC list of editors. Esem0 (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that you were asking in general terms, not about one specific RfC - so what is "That discussion"? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC here that you actually helped fix in the placement.Esem0 (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I fix lots of RfCs, often more than one that were started by the same person. So for that specific RfC, you would need to ask, who was the person that , why they only let it run for four and a half days instead of thirty. I do know that there was no related request at Closure requests that Buidhe might have acted upon. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As per WP:RFC, "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be." In this case there is a clear consensus both numerically and in terms of the strength of arguments. Running it for longer isn't going to change the outcome. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ″Running it for longer isn't going to change the outcome″ is your opinion unless we run it for 30 days and see. There are serious irregularities both numerically and in terms of the strength of the arguments: The first comment comes from a watcher who made no input during the discussion but starts off the RfC complaining with a call to close it. The next two comments are from the only two opposing participants in the preceding discussion, who repeat the same. Another comment comes also from someone who has not disagreed for that source to be in the article for 5+ months, also does not take part in the preceding discussion, but comes to state ″Let's make sure it is removed and move on″, whilst advising that I stop opposing (but not the same for the other two opponents). Another comment relies only on the ″neutral statement″, without reference to the discussion. Overlooking all these and other irregularities while other questions remain open adds to the problems. Also, given the shortage of active and independent RfC editors to participate in this complex topic, I would say that we have overwhelming reasons to allow this RfC to run for at least 30-days without further interference. There is no harm to WP. Esem0 (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion was closed prematurely. It was closed not only after less than 5 days of discussion, but less than 1 day since the most recent contribution.  It does look unlikely that the consensus was going to be different from what was apparent after 4.5 days, but it would not have hurt to wait a few more days for others to comment and the discussion to die down, if only to be sure of that consensus.
 * I don't think the discussion would have lasted 30 days, though. 30 days is not the normal time for an RfC to run; it's just a maximum -- when an RfC has been running that long, the system assumes no one is paying attention and automatically terminates it as a housekeeping measure.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above helpful comment except for the specific situation arising from the shortage of editors in the RfC invitation. Here, 4 out of 5 requested editors are not active for years, while the fifth has not responded yet. This defeats the essence of the RfC. We need independent editors, because of the irregularities observed. The abnormal closure is also out of order making the whole situation problematic and concerning. Let us uphold the Pillars of Wikipedia. An average of around 10 RfC editors would be fair and reasonable to have for this case, otherwise allow ample time. Furthermore, the real issue must be narrowed down and spelled out as evidenced from the problems surfacing so far (this also requires time). I would agree that the 30 days may not be the normal duration, but the RfC shortage is not normal either. For this problem combined with the subtleties of the issue, we should let the duration run to its maximum even in the absence of activity. It would not hurt in this case to let it die down and let the Legobot do the job of termination. Esem0 (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the remedy of multiple issues arising from the above discussion? Esem0 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One remedy is to modify #4 in Requests for comment as: ″Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion, provided either (a) there are at least five comments from the list of notified RfC editors and seven days after the last comment by a RfC editor, or (b) the discussion runs for 30 days. The editor  removes the rfc tag at the same time.″ Esem0 (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Esem0, while I believe that @Buidhe might have been a bit over-enthusiastic about closing this (we usually wait at least a week, mostly to preserve the poster's feelings, and when the person starting the RFC thinks time will make a difference, I never object to letting it run for a month), I also believe that the outcome would have been the same no matter what.
 * I've also looked into your concerns about inactive editors being notified. The editors who were notified have (as of today) been "inactive" for only three weeks, six months, four months, one hour, and seven months, not "years".  I noticed that you listed this question as being about a proposed change to Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, which is probably the main reason you got no responses.  Three of the notified editors were given an irrelevant notification.  If you want to have a better chance of finding people who are interested in the state of physics during the Age of Enlightenment, then you want , not policy.  Please read the paragraph at WP:RFCCAT for more information before your next RFC.
 * I don't think that your proposed change here (i.e., to add more bureaucratic rules to WP:RFC) is a good one. An RFC should be closed when the question has been answered.  I believe your question has been answered.  The only thing that keeping it open would accomplish is letting you waste some time hoping that the outcome would change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to find the editors' "inactivity" period, but even what you have found shows that 4 out of 5 were effectively out of action for any practical effect (weeks and months is just as bad). Also, what the outcome might have been for that particular RfC should not be a point of discussion and judgment here, unless we want to re-hash the entire discussion. We do not want to do the latter, while it is unfair to pass any overriding comment in that regard. I do not agree that it "adds more bureaucratic rules″, while "waste of time" should not be an issue for voluntary editors striving to uphold the Pillars of Wikipedia. At any rate, thank you for your opinion and I hope my disagreements/concerns are appreciated. Esem0 (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * regarding your | inversion, I assumed that all points of the mildly “opposing”(?) editor were addressed while we received no further objections for a whole week, if time means something(?). Furthermore, I was relying on the spirit of the entire discussion here including comments by and  also pointing out the abnormal closure of a discussion. In total, if the opposing editor still thinks the change is not a “good idea” because of ”more bureaucratic rules”, then we can simplify the change to

4. Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion, provided either (a) there are at least five comments from the list of notified RfC editors, or (b) the discussion runs for 30 days. The editor removes the rfc tag at the same time.
 * This would address the issue of relative scarcity of RfC editors per Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service, which is the actual issue now, and not another issue (subject matter) that has led to the current proposal here. Furthermore, it would prevent over-enthusiastic editors closing a discussion prematurely. The shortened proposal now requires only minimal checking for the presence of enough RfC comments on the part of a volunteer editor inclined to close an RfC discussion early. Overall, the proposed change is a good improvement for all good WP purposes.
 * It should be appreciated that there exists a real RfC editor issue (not a specific subject matter), for which the alarm was prophetically raised | at the outset of an RfC case. The same is evidenced from perusing all this section and the preceding one. Therefore, the above proposal will serve to offset the lack of sufficient RfC editors. Esem0 (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing said, in part, that [she doesn't] think that your proposed change here (i.e., to add more bureaucratic rules to WP:RFC) is a good one. There's no indication her concerns have been resolved, as your change (both as implemented and your supposedly simpler proposal) is just as bureaucratic as it ever was. Giraffedata agreed that Buidhe closed that specific RfC too soon, which is not the same thing as agreeing with your proposed addition, whereas Redrose64 hasn't even expressed any opinion on the propriety of the closure, making both of those comments irrelevant to assessing consensus for your proposed addition * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 13:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I support adding guidance to WP:RFC to ensure new commenters are given a chance to comment before the discussion is closed, and I think giving them 7 days, unless 5 people have commented before then, is reasonable. I think if someone hasn't commented within 7 days of being notified of the RfC, there is very little chance she will in the next 23 days.  I don't think it matters whether the new participants were invited by Yapperbot or not, so I would just count the number of commenters who hadn't participated in any pre-RfC discussion rather than count invited commenters.
 * Frankly, though I have now seen one instance of it, I have a hard time believing a significant number of editors would need to be told this, but on the other hand, it's a pretty trivial addition to the page. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your position; it is very helpful indeed. If I may add my thoughts why the RfC editors are important, even critical: Articles are usually "watched" by editors who may have already contributed and by some who want to preserve the stability of the article, in good faith, against vandalism and against violations of WP policy. However, if there is an embedded or entrenched fault in the article, it would be very hard to undo by a new editor. There are various kinds of faults that I would need a lot of space to analyze. Nevertheless, my thought is that in such abnormal situations, we do need independent (outside) editors AND ample time, and the RfC process is there to produce this service. We already heard that time is no harm to the article, so time is the remedy to compensate for the lack of RfC editors. We should note that 24 hours in global time is the minimum quantum of time to allow viewing changes, but I would say that one week is a minimum time interval to allow weekly schedules by many editors. Then we need another week for a proper response, so that nothing less than 14 days can ascertain a good discussion. I thought that the default 30-day period was a wise choice in the first place. Let us remember that veracity is the prime/ultimate goal of WP while RfC and time should be there to uphold correct WP policy and truth. Bottom line: Please spell out what you exactly propose to improve on a weakness in the system of WP. Esem0 (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your point about allowing for a proper response falls under the separate rule, "Don't close the discussion while it's still going on." If you want to codify that one too, I'd say that rule should be wait until no one has added anything for 7 days before closing.
 * So far, it's not clear anyone but you and I think the page should get numerical about either of these rules, so it's a little early for an exact proposal. We could also consider just spelling out the two principles (give people a chance to comment; wait for people to finish discussing).  Today, all we say is, "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be."  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "No one has added anything for 7 days" isn't a good idea. Someone posting every few days to say "Can we close this now?  Everyone's agreed." or a person posting at 6.5 days to say "I agree with everyone else" could be wiki-lawyered as resetting the clock.
 * I feel like we're headed into "bad cases make bad law" territory. At the moment, we have one editor, who lost one RFC, which was shut down very quickly, who wants the rules changed to make that one RFC take longer to end up with the same result.  The proposal was doomed before it was posted.
 * I believe that a few years ago, we had a note that the duration of an RFC should rarely be less than a week. This is reasonable/consistent with practice for typical RFCs, but I believe it produced a complaint or two when the OPs genuinely wanted to stop a discussion – editors maybe being tempted to get a bit of revenge by making the OP watch it WP:SNOW on their RFC for a whole week, as a type of punishment for starting the RFC in the first place.  Poorly conceived RFCs ought to be shut down as soon as possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not resetting the clock because rules #1, #2, #3 and #5 can take precedence. It is only restricting an over-enthusiastic editor arbitrarily closing an RfC per #4 only. We should not argue on a specific case again here, especially when the case was prematurely closed without allowing pending arguments. Here, two editors are trying to remedy the problem arising from the lack of RfC editors, while two other editors are only opposing without proposing anything. Hence, the shortened proposal above serves the stated purpose well, so far. Esem0 (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that's how you think it ought to work, but when other people are motivated to have the opposite outcome… ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is essentially about the same issues as in Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service. Can a more experienced editor somehow liaise the two discussions to avoid overlooking an important WP project requirement? Perhaps a sysop might provide overall guidance too? Esem0 (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Esem0, you're already talking to admins and editors who are more experienced than 99.5% of the English Wikipedia's editors. What more do you expect? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that administrators and sysops are the same - compare WP:ADMIN with WP:SYSOP. Of the six participants here (Buidhe, Esem0, Giraffedata, Pppery, Redrose64, WhatamIdoing), I am the only admin; but I consider that several of the others have the experience that we look for in a potential administrator. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatamidoing, it seems we are talking cross-purposes, because I do not understand the purpose of your comment. Esem0 (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. However, I only requested if a more experienced editor (other than myself), or sysop, could help with what I consider a serious vulnerability of a specific RfC rule and a possible solution. For example, organized sock-puppetry can take advantage, which is of paramount importance vis-à-vis all presented objections against the proposed change (improvement). I believe, it is time to close a loophole that allows abuse. This could be achieved via a consensus by the present and/or other participants (admins or not, experienced or not). Esem0 (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Esem0, the general course of this conversation has run like this:
 * You: I had a problem, and I have an idea about how to fix it.
 * Five editors who are much, much, much more experienced than you: The problem you encountered is uncommon and not as straightforwardly problematic as you experienced it, and the solution you propose is not functional.
 * You: I want to talk to someone who is more experienced than me.
 * Everyone else: You just did that.
 * I'm left wondering: Is the definition of "a more experienced editor" basically "anyone who agrees with me"?  You're already talking to people who have made tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of edits.  Why would you ask to talk to "a more experienced editor" when you've already been talking to some of the most experienced editors in the entire English Wikipedia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ... But I have been referring to "...somehow liaise the two discussions..." about an important matter. This request is addressed to all the present and/or other participants, so I do not understand the purpose of all above extraneous statements and incorrect formulation of the subject matter. Esem0 (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We already did "liaise the two discussions". Also, there is no "important WP project requirement" involved in either of these two discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Therefore: (a) We must assume that all editors here actually take into account both liaised discussions. (b) Your statement that there is no "important WP project requirement” involved in either of these two discussions is presumably a denial of my statement that both discussions are about an important matter. However, this denial is arbitrary in view of the nature of issues raised in both discussions. (c) Extraneous statements arising from all talking-at-cross-purposes are inappropriate/unwarranted for reaching a consensus here. Esem0 (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you have misunderstood. I deny that there is any "WP project requirement" involved.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification: Therefore, we agree that we are discussing an important matter herewith. Esem0 (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that this is an important matter; I have not expressed either agreement or disagreement with that part of your claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It was said that Yapperbot sends between 5-15 RfC requests. If this is a random number, then we should expect an average of about 10 requests. Can somebody verify that this actually happens? Then, what percentage of those invitations were actually active editors at the time of each invitation? This inquiry will establish if there is a basis for an important matter or not per preceding arguments. Esem0 (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not a random number. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but Yapperbot sends between 5 and 15 (chosen at random) notices of each RfC, once, between 30 and 90 minutes after the RfC starts according to Legobot notification frequency. In any case, clearly, this invalidates preceding arguments against improving WP rules herewith. Could an experienced administrator (maybe ?) take some corrective action to rectify the due status of this discussion on an important matter, re the amended rule above? Esem0 (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't control, whose operator is . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * might be able to provide us with the facts on Yapperbot relating to or missing from the two liaised discussions herewith. Thanks. Esem0 (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The number of invitations actually sent is not random, because it is limited by the number of people on the list and the number of notifications they are willing to receive. If there are 75 names in a category (not unusual, and one category has half that), with a median of two notifications per month (typical), then 15 RFCs in that category could swamp the entire list, and zero invitations will be sent for that category the rest of the month.
 * All of which adds up to: You are not entitled to have any invitations sent for your RFC, and even if some invitations are sent, you are not entitled to get any comments from anyone who was invited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, matters are even worse than if Pppery’s claim were to be correct per . That is, in actual fact RfCs are pretty ineffective in achieving the purpose for which they exist: In the absence of a reasonable number of RfC responders (if any, due to scarcity), then any passerby editor may come and close an ongoing discussion at will, because he/she can. This possibility is allowed by the current RfC policy/rules. Organized sockpuppetry can also take advantage of this loophole, while you have not provided examples about handling this serious problem . Hence, it is necessary to amend it accordingly. The only way to remedy this problem is to guarantee sufficient time without allowing arbitrary and immature closures of discussions. My proposed minor amendment of rule #4 achieves exactly this remedy. All opposing arguments so far have been invalidated. If no new opposing reasons are presented, I (or another editor) should proceed and reinstall the above amendment. Thank you. Esem0 (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't recognize the problem that you're talking about. I've closed discussions that involved widespread sockpuppetry, such as this one (and you won't understand how widespread the socking really was without clicking the usernames involved). Because I closed it against the numerical consensus, it was, I suppose, "arbitrary and immature" to one of the sockmasters, who asked for it to be reviewed and overturned here, unsuccessfully. That link shows you how RfC closures can be overturned if they were arbitrary and immature, by the way: we have provision to review RfCs.I should say to you very clearly that, if you wish to pursue your crusade to change our rules, you must do so by convincing other editors, not by persisting until you have exhausted their willingness to talk to you and then taking their silence as consent to your change.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 15:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that you don’t recognize the problem: Your referenced RfC remained opened for 41 days, from 17 December 2014 until you closed it on 27 January 2015, and 17 days after the last opposing comment. I could not complain that it was an arbitrary and immature closure, as the ample duration also served in the defeat of sockpuppetry. Hence, it perfectly serves to support my proposal. Thanks for that.
 * You say that I ...wish to pursue a crusade to change our rules.... However, I am only attempting to improve just one form of one rule (not “the rules”, in general). This can hardly be called a “crusade”, especially when my casual editing is dwarfed by the other editors. I guess that you include me too in our rules, unless your rules are immutable. Without any prior contribution to this discussion, your words: … I should say to you very clearly that... sound a bit patronizing out of the blue, certainly not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Furthermore, you assume no good faith in my arguments attempting to do exactly what you suggest, namely, …convincing other editors. Your allegations are not sustained. In effect, Whatamidoing and I have been conducting a dialogue, one after the other, in turn and with new material each time, which can be hardly seen as “silence” by Whatamidoing, which is taken as consent for my intended change. has seconded Whatamidoing only on one argument at the outset, while  has engaged in support of change of the rules. I am simply polite about my intention for the change to avoid edit warring. In the face of all these, normally, you might like now to support my proposal. Otherwise, you may continue fueling your own “crusade” in safeguarding “our rules” unopposed by me.  Esem0 (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (NB: This is a general point that I've been thinking about, as it's come up in multiple unrelated discussions.  It is not really specific to this page or any editor on this page.)
 * I fully believe that @S Marshall assumes good faith. The problem is that "good faith" is a very low standard.  "Assume good faith" comes from Hanlon's razor, commonly given as "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity".  You assume good faith when someone wrecks a car – that is, you assume that they didn't deliberately intend to wreck the car.  On wiki, when we "assume good faith", we are saying that an editor is unintentionally screwing up (e.g., due to a lack of information, or not knowing How to Win Friends and Influence People).   The alternative to good faith is believing the editor is deliberately screwing up for the purpose of hurting Wikipedia.
 * @Esem0, I don't think that anybody believes that you are deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia. People might (or might not; I don't claim to be a mind reader) believe that you've got a case of sour grapes over your RFC, or they might believe that you're more stubborn and convinced of your own correctness than a normal person would be (I certainly am stubborn and certain of my views; lots of editors seem to be), or that your social skills aren't up to this challenge, or any number of other things, but I seriously doubt that anybody would think, even for a moment, that you have deliberately set out to hurt anyone or anything.  To go back to my car-wreck example, if this proposal were a car wreck, then you might have wrecked the car, but nobody thinks you did it on purpose.  You don't need to worry about anyone thinking that you are making this proposal in bad faith. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So combining Hanlon + AGF = WP:Assume stupidity? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 15:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OMG! Turns out that's a blue link! <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 15:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Stupidity isn't the only option, but yes. Assuming that people have good intentions (until proven otherwise) is not assuming a lot.  It's not very different from the hovertext on https://xkcd.com/1357/. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OMG! The blue link … is intended as humor and is one way to entertain (or deviate from) losing arguments. It must be accepted, in good faith, to be humor as not to offend someone intentionally. This reciprocal good faith then means that stupidity flows in all directions (humorously), so that everybody feels good. It has to be humor, otherwise the wiki patrol should have intervened in the first place (if not an oversight). But then, if It's not very different from the hovertext, is it still humor? It must be humor again because the wiki patrol still does not intervene (if not an oversight). The alternative is that a very low standard wiki pillar (good faith) is to be re-appraised, downgraded or deleted, but not yet (not by this editor). Of course, the blue link itself is a humorous gimmick and pure | sophistry. In any case, humor might look nice at some point in a discussion, especially when played by a symphony orchestra. (Nota Bene: All of this reply is intended as humor in line with the blue link provided; it is also a general thinking in line with the one already presented and is not aimed at anyone specific editor. I must fully believe that all editors here are upholding the “good faith” pillar. It seems that WP provides for all tastes and occasions. But I can’t see how readers benefit from this diversion. It is a Bad Distraction albeit a revealing one). Esem0 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The hover text at XKCD, for anyone who doesn't want to click through, says: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it&amp;#39;s not literally illegal to express."
 * The parallel for AGF would be "Defending your position by saying people should assume good faith is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that you want them to believe that you're not actively, purposefully, maliciously trying to harm Wikipedia." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect there is a mistaken belief here – specifically, an incorrect belief that the FRS is the primary method (or even the sole method) of soliciting feedback from uninvolved editors. The FRS is just an optional convenience for the minority of editors who happen to prefer that style to watching relevant pages.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I never believed that the FRS is the primary or the sole method of soliciting feedback from uninvolved editors. I am not mistaken. You maintain an unwarranted suspicion. Like you, I can see that it is an optional convenience for editors to seek help. This does not mean that it should be sidelined or neglected against an improvement. The current strong opposition to a minor improvement is not consistent with it (FRS) not playing an important role in WP. You have made it even more important, indeed. This unwarranted opposition looks like a crusade to maintain a flawed status quo. By taking part in my above alleged “crusade”, you own about 50% of it. Logic, consistency, and common sense should prevail if we wish to arrive at a consensus (or, do we?). It would be nice now if you yourself implemented my proposal, as one exemplary case without the stick of an arbitrator :) Esem0 (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think your proposal is a bad one. Your proposal amounts to a declaration that your RFC was either entitled to stay open for 30 days or to get at least five comments from people notified through the FRS system.  Artificially extending RFC lengths beyond their useful purpose is a Bad Idea.  Enshrining the FRS system into the bureaucratic side of Wikipedia is a (separate) Bad Idea.  I will not agree to or implement Bad Ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we need to provide the following Summary of the discussion at this point: In effect, all arguments against the proposal have been provided by Whatamidoing without any additional arguments by a few intervening editors. On the supporting side, Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) has contributed specific support for change. The most recent replies by Whatamidoing merely recycle the same:


 * ...that you've got a case of sour grapes... is only a low standard speculation unfit for WP purposes.


 * ...Artificially extending RFC lengths beyond their useful purpose is a Bad Idea... has been refuted after Bryan Henderson’s (giraffedata’s) support for change. It would nice if we don’t have to explain the same. My proposal on #4 (only) rule would not artificially extend the length of an RfC beyond its useful purpose, because the remaining rules stay intact to determine the said length of the RfC. My proposal would only prevent the arbitrary and premature closing of an RfC by some editor parachuting in the middle of a discussion. Time is of the essence to allow a discussion to mature but also to prevent undue interference. It is not difficult for a small number of sockpuppets to orchestrate and steer an outcome their way. It is quite obvious that time is of the essence without further ado. Rule #4 is flawed in that respect at present, pure and simple. This is undeniable, so that just capitalizing the words Bad Idea is no new argument at all. I can equally say that it is a Good Idea. Overall, there are no valid arguments to oppose the proposal.


 * Now, the new facts about the lack of sufficient RfC editors (per Whatamidoing info) becomes a major source of the above flaw. This makes the part of my proposal for at least 5 RfC editors impractical and redundant. That was based on Pppery’s original information. If this is seen as bureaucratic side, then I agree to remove it (although it would not be much of a hindrance). At any rate, we can leave only the typical 30 days duration in rule #4 only for an external editor to be able to close the discussion. We should not allow an external editor to ruin an ongoing discussion or allow organized sockpuppets to spoil WP. This is righteous, simple, and straightforward necessity, for which we could have a consensus much earlier without needless diversions. To remain stubborn for the sake of being stubborn or for the sake of not-changing rules is not a wikipedian virtue. Therefore, I next modify the proposal accordingly in the hope to conclude this discussion in the best possible way ASAP. Esem0 (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Based on the preceding discussion and Summary, I propose to minimally amend rule #4 as follows: 4. Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion, provided the discussion runs for at least 30 days. The editor removes the rfc tag at the same time. Esem0 (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. This is yet another example of the type of bureaucratic rule that WhatamIdoing opposed and I reverted earlier. Please drop the stick. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 16:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, Pppery. I strongly oppose enshrining a 30-day minimum standard for RFCs.  A month should normally,  but not always , be considered the maximum useful length of time.  (In my experience, a week is typically,  but not always , the minimum useful length of time.  A surprising number of RFCs are ended within a day or two of being opened.  Since we allow editors of any skill level to start RFCs without oversight, based solely on their own initiative, we must allow them to end RFCs on a reasonably similar basis.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * … But the proposal does  not  enshrine a 30-day minimum standard, or any minimum or maximum useful length of time for an RfC proper. It applies only to uninvolved editors for all the reasons provided but sidelined. You are opposing a probably misconstrued but non-existent content in my third short proposal. Please avoid cross-talking again; this is now an issue. Your strong opposition is null and void, because you oppose imaginary things. The current proposal is in perfect order for inclusion. Please, come on: drop the stick from fictitious horse carcasses. Un-wiki-like, this discussion can be (through no fault of mine) worse than the Tower of Babel, unless common sense prevails.  Esem0 (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose making this change, for the reasons exhaustively given above.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 12:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Esem0, I understand that you only intend for this to enshrine a minimum discussion length for one of the most common ways for an RFC to end, but I am telling you that Policy writing is hard, and the English Wikipedia has a strong tendency to turn even advice explicitly listed as "optional suggestions" into firm requirements (How many times have you seen someone demand that others follow WP:BRD?). This won't work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Before we can move on, we need another Interim Summary: An uninvolved editor working to close an RfC must see the starting date of the discussion any way. It is no bureaucracy whatsoever by noting if the duration of the 30-day period is met or not. Therefore, Pppery’s argument that This is yet another example of the type of bureaucratic rule that WhatamIdoing opposed and I reverted earlier is simply void of fact; the last version is vastly different from the first. Marshall’s argument, namely, for the reasons exhaustively given above is also void of fact, since his own input has been clearly invalidated along with all irrelevant variations of argument provided by WhatamIdoing. Her last input has not really furnished any new material either by reference to Wikipedia policy writing is hard and related speculative statements. Thus, we have three editors opposing the last version of change for no reason whatsoever. It is only the number of editors preventing the change under the 3R (revert) rule but with zero reason. Discounting the intervening humorous sophistry as waste of space and time, we are left with three editors who allow any uninvolved editor to close an RfC literally at any time including 4 days without even a request to close. The latter possibility allows abuse by organized sockpuppetry manipulating the outcome of a discussion. This is clearly a loophole making WP easily vulnerable. The latest proposed change aims to ameliorate and mitigate this weakness, but it is clearly sidelined while the importance of the RfC process is downplayed by the opposition. I consider the entire discussion a very serious matter in its own right. We are talking about rectifying an inherent fault, which is not in line with vision of Wikipedia. Either this change is accepted or the following one: Esem0 (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Telling uninvolved editors (=a group that includes uninvolved admins) that they can remove an rfc tag and put a box around a discussion if and only if 30 days have passed, no matter what their best judgment indicates is the best way to improve Wikipedia, is "bureaucracy". In simpler words, you proposed telling editors that following a rigid, mandatory procedure is better than telling editors to use their best judgment.  Everyone else disagrees with you.
 * We do not have three editors opposing the last version for no reason whatsoever. We might, however, have one editor who believes that any reason that editor personally disagrees with isn't a valid one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

An alternative to achieve the above aim is to ensure consistency with all current rules for closing an RfC per below clarification in rule #4: 4 Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion by acting on a formal closure request posted at Closure requests. The editor removes the rfc tag at the same time. Esem0 (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No. Nobody else wants rigid rules that require editors to file a piece of paperwork before they can take action to (in their best judgment) improve Wikipedia.
 * This wording wouldn't have stopped editors from closing your doomed RFC. Anyone could have posted at note at Closure requests and then immediately closed the RFC.  What you've written here would have done nothing more than created two pointless edits (one to list it, one to end it) to Closure requests and delayed the closing of your doomed RFC by about 15 seconds.
 * The bottom line: I think we shouldn't do this because it's a bad idea, and you wouldn't be satisfied because it wouldn't have prevented people from closing your doomed RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

For reverting my last edit of the Project Page, Pppery’s "edit summary": How many times to we have to object to your insistent overformalization of RfC closure processes before you drop the stick? is carried over here so that ordinary readers and editors of this discussion can readily see what was done “under the bonnet” of WP’s "View History". The first part ("how many times...") is more of a threat than an argument, whilst the second part ("overformalization") is easily refuted below. It is now clear that the proposal is prevented by entrenched positions literally prohibiting logical discussion and genuine improvement of the RfC process.

Now, the proposed modification of current rule #4 by the simplest addition of the phrase "by acting on a formal closure request posted at Wikipedia:Closure requests" is labeled "overformalization" as an excuse for reverting. However, exactly the same wording is already in force by the accompanying clarification of rule #4, namely, Anyone who wants an uninvolved editor to write a closing summary of the discussion (ideally with a determination of consensus) can formally request closure by posting at Wikipedia:Closure requests. In effect, I am attempting to ensure that editors follow exactly the best (this) understanding of the existing situation. That is, we must prevent the arbitrary use of the rules by way of a loophole that presently allows abuse of the spirit and aims of WP. Of course, there is always the Ignore all rules avenue if one feels limited to do the righteous thing by a "bureaucratic", or "overformalized", or even a "30-day" rule#4 as previously proposed. In the meantime, we cannot abolish the rules or let them be penetrated by abusers of all kinds. Perhaps, the only seeming "overformalization" may appear from the repeat of the word formal twice in what could have been a grammatically simpler statement: 4. Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion by acting on a closure request posted at Closure requests. The editor removes the rfc tag at the same time. This is a prima facie case of nothing wrong with it. I do not agree that this would have done nothing more than created two pointless edits (one to list it, one to end it) and delayed the closing of your doomed RFC by about 15 seconds, because only willful editors, or well-intentioned POV pushers lurking in the background could organize such a thing but would be obvious and could be readily reverted; that was another amazing opposition. I don't think that a request to close can be acted in 15 seconds: On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. Also, we don't want dubious solicitations in the background (overt or covert).

By only labeling something as "rigid rule", or "bad idea", or "bureaucratic", or "overformalization", etc. without supporting facts, reason and common sense is a void argument. Labeling as insistent (overformalization) three distinctly different versions of the proposed change is also void of truth but is used to threaten: How many times to we have to object to your insistent overformalization. This kind of labeling and use is the low side of the entire preceding discussion.

A copy from a WP Patrol newsletter of September 2021 states: Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. However, the opposition here have repeatedly sidelined this problem throughout the preceding discussion. There has been no valid argument against implementing what is already stated in the Project Page. However, the RfC process as presently laid out has a loophole that allows an uninvolved editor to parachute and disrupt a discussion prematurely under rule#4 being disconnected from the rest of the RfC process. It is weird or something else that the opposition does not allow a simple clarification from inside rule#4 to connect with what is already in the RfC process. Instead of rational arguments, a host of attempts to oust the proposal have been made like the stick, showing you the door, rude humor, distraction, patronizing and much more. Statements become void when they fail to supply any facts here and elsewhere. Two of the opposing protagonists cannot even agree on Yapperbot behavior at the root of the problem of inactive RfC editors that caused this discussion in the first place. One editor claims that there are 5-15 random requests but the other claims that it is not a random number. Void arguments, no facts. A high school debating team would have achieved a better outcome than this.

All this and more make this discussion ludicrous on which no improvement of WP is possible. We can clearly see why the inactive RfC editors problem "was doomed" from improvement when my alerting to it was swept under the carpet at the outset without a visible trace of a discussion.

To the dislike of some, my return here is to ensure that this discussion can at least serve as reference material and a clear example of where or how Wikipedia fails. This is a case study that, hopefully, will help find a way to overcome this failing later, if not now, for if any responses follow, they are not likely to be different. Esem0 (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No.
 * Please stop.
 * Nobody supports your changes. For example, nobody supports your proposal to effectively change "Anyone who wants an uninvolved editor... can formally request closure" (i.e., a factual statement about an available option) into a rule that requires uninvolved editors to only summarize discussions if someone has posted such a request.  Nobody supports anything else you've proposed, either.
 * Please stop. You have been complaining that people wrongly closed your doomed RFC since May.  It's November now.  Please. Stop. Already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why don’t you stop before me? XD Esem0 (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: I've posted on WP:CR for an uninvolved sysop to step in and close this debate.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 12:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)